


DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY 











Che International Critical Commentary 
on the §olv Scriptures of the Old and 


New Testaments. 


EDITORS PREFACE. 





THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, 
written by British and American divines, of a popular or 
homiletical character. Zhe Cambridge Bible for Schools, 
the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The 
Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), 
The Expositor’s Bible, and other similar series, have their 
speciai place and importance. But they do not enter into 
the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such 
series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette’s Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum N. T.; Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
mentar; Keil and Delitzsch’s Brblischer Commentar tiber das 
A.T.; Lange’s Theologisch-homiietisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s 
Handkommentar zum A. T.; Holtzmann’s Handkommentar 
zum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, 
and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- 
speaking public; others are in process of translation. But 
no corresponding series. by British or American divines 
has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared 
by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, 
Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has 
come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, 
when it is practicable to combine British and American 
scholars in the production ef a critical, comprehensive 


EDITORS PREFACE 


Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar- 
ship, and in a measure lead its van. 

Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a 
series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, 
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Brices, D.D., in America, 
and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and 
the Rev. ALFRED PLumMMER, D.D., for the New Testament, 
in Great Britain. 

The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- 
fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical 
bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of 
(he original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of 
interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and 
vlergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each 
book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results 
of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions 
still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear 
in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each 
section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, 
or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and 
philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from 
matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testa- 
ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted 
with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books 
will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, 
with critical notices of the most important literature of 
the subject. Historical and Archeological questions, as 
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the 
plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical 
Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series, 


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY. 


Tue following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the Volumes 


named below: 


Genesis 


Exodus 
Leviticus 
Numbers 
Deuteronomy 
Joshua 
Judges 
Samuel 


Kings 


Chronicles 


Ezra and 
Nehemiah 
Psalms 


Proverbs 


Job 
Isaiah 
Isaiah 


Jeremiah 


Ezekiel 


Daniel 


THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


The Rev. JoHN SK1nnER, D.D., Professor of Old Tes- 
tament Language and Literature, College of Pres- 
byterian Church of England, Cambridge, England. 


The Rev. A. R. S. KenneEpDy, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. 


J. F. Srennine, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, 
Oxford. 

G. BUCHANAN GrRAy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Mansfield College, Oxford. [Vow Ready, 

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready. 


The Rev. GEorGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow. 
The Rev. Georce Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Theology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
[Mow Ready. 

The Rev. H. P. Smiru, D.D., Professor of Biblical 
History, Amherst College, Mass. [Vow Ready. 

The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York City. 

The Rev. Epwarp L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 

The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of 
St. Marks Church, New York City, sometime 
Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
Philadelphia. 

The Rev. Cuas. A. Brices, D.D., D.Litt., Pro- 
fessor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 

The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 

[Now Ready. 

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 

Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 


Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., 
D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 
Chaps. XL-LXVI. The late Rev. Prof. A. B. 

Davipson, D.D., LL.D. 


The Rev. A. F. Kirxpatrick, D.D., Master of 
Selwyn College, Regius Professor of Hebrew, 
Cambridge, England. 


By the Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Fellow Mag- 
dalen College, and the Rev. CHARLEs F. BURNEY, 
M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. Johns 
College, Oxford. 

The Rev. Joun P. PETERS, Ph.D., D.D., sometime 
Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael’s Church, 
New York City. 


Amos and Hosea W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the 


University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready. 


Micah to Malachi W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the 


Esther 


University of Chicago. 


The Rev. L. B. PATon, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Hartford Theological Seminary. 


The Internationa Critica? Commentary, 


Ecclesiastes 


Ruth 


Song of Songs 


and Lamentations 


St. Matthew 
€ 


St. Mark 


St. Luke 


St. John 


Harmony of the 
Gospels 


Acts 


Romans 


Corinthians 


Galatians 


Ephesians and 
Colossians 


Philippians and 
Philemon 


Thessalonians 


The Pastoral 
Epistles 
Hebrews 


St. James 


Peter and Jude 


The Epistles of 
St. John 


Revelation 


Prof. GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of 
Biblical Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. 

Rev. CHARLES P. FAGNANI, D.D., Associate Profes- 
sor of Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. 

Rev. CHARLES A. Brices, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of 
Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


The Rev. WILLoucHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of 
Exeter College, Oxford. 

The late Rev. E. P. Goutp, D.D., sometime 
Professor of New Testament Literature, P. E. 
Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Wow Ready. 

The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master 
of University College, Durham. [Vow Ready. 

The Very Rev. JoHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean 
of St. Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, 
University of Dublin. 

The Rev. WiLL1AM SanpDAy, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the 
Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of 
Exeter College, Oxford. 

The Rev. FREDERICK H. CHASE, Norissonian Pro- 
fessor of Divinity, President of Queens College 
and Vice-Chancellor, Cambridge, England. 

The Rev. WiLL1AM SanpaAy, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of 
Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. 
HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of Kings College, 
London. [Vow Ready. 

The Right Rev. ArcH. RoBERTsoN, D.D., LL.D., 
Lord Bishop of Exeter, and the Rev. RICHARD J. 
KNow Linc, D.D., Professor of New Testament 
Exegesis, Kings College, London. 

The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of 
New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 

The Rev. T. K. Assott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime 
Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, 
Dublin, now Librarian of the same. [Mow Ready. 

The Rev. Marvin R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor ot 
Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York City. [Now Ready. 

The Rev. JAMes E. FRAME, M.A., Associate Profes- 
sor in the New Testament, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 

The Rev. WALTER Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble 
College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 

The Rev. A. NArIRNE, M.A., Professor of Hebrew 
in Kings College, London. 

The Rev. JAmes H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of 
New Testament Criticism in Harvard University. 

The Rev. CHARLES Bice, D.D., Regius Professor 
of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ 
Church, Oxford. [Wow Ready. 

The Rev. S. D. F. SALMonpD, D.D., Principal of the 
United Free Church College, Aberdeen. 

The Rev. Ropert H. Cuar.es, M.A., D.D., Profes- 
sor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublis: 


Tab COSEED ACCORDING TO 
Sy LURE 


Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 





THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 


A 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE 


BY THE 


Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 


MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM 


FORMERLY FELLOW AND SENIOR TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD 


SEVENTH EDITION 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 


1906 





PREFACE 


Gz ee 


THIs volume has no such ambitious aim as that of being a 
final commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke. 
The day is probably still far distant when any such com- 
mentary can be written. One of the difficulties with which 
the present commentator has had to contend is the im- 
possibility of keeping abreast of all that is constantly 
appearing respecting the Synoptic Gospels as a whole and 
this or that detail in them. And the Third Gospel abounds 
in details which have elicited special treatment at the hands 
of a variety of scholars. Every quarter, indeed almost every 
month, brings its list of new books, some of which the 
writer wishes that he could have seen before his own words 
were printed. But to wait is but to prolong, if not to 
increase, one’s difficulties: it is waiting dum defluat amnis. 
Notes written and rewritten three or four times must be 
fixed in some form at last, if they are ever to be published. 
And these notes are now offered to those who care to use 
them, not as the last word on any one subject, but simply 
as one more stage in the long process of eliciting from the 
inexhaustible storehouse of the Gospel narrative some of 
those things which it is intended to convey to us. They 
will have done their work if they help someone who is far 
better equipped entirely to supersede them. 

The writer of this volume is well aware of some of 
its shortcomings. There are omissions which have been 
knowingly tolerated for one or other of two adequate 


reasons. (1) This series is to include a Commentary on 


472848 


iv PREFACE 


the Synopsis of the Four Gospels by the Rev. Dr. Sanday, 
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and his dis- 
tinguished pupil, the Rev. W. C. Allen, Fellow and Lecturer 
of Exeter College. Various questions, especially as regards 
the relations of the Third Gospel to the First and Second, 
which have been but slightly touched or entirely passed 
over in this volume, can be more suitably treated, and will 
be much more efficiently treated, by those who are to com- 
ment on the Synopsis. (2) Economy of space has had to 
be considered and rigorously enforced. It has been 
thought undesirable to allow more than one volume to 
any one book in the New Testament: and therefore sub- 
jects, which might with propriety be discussed at some 
length in a work on the Gospel of S. Luke, have of 
necessity been handled very briefly or left entirely un- 
touched. Indeed, as editor of those New Testament 
volumes which are written by British scholars, the present 
writer has been obliged to strike out a good deal of what 
he had written as contributor to this series. And it has 
been with a view to economize space that the paraphrastic 
summaries, which are so very valuable a feature in the 
commentary on Romans, have been altogether omitted, as 
being a luxury rather than a necessity in a commentary on 
one of the Synoptic Gospels. For the same reason separate 
headings to sections and to special notes have been used 
very sparingly. The sub-sections have no separate head- 
ings, but are preceded by an introductory paragraph, the 
first sentence of which is equivalent to a heading. 

The fact of the same person being both contributor 
and editor has, in the case of this volume, produced short- 
comings of another kind. Two heads are better than one, 
and two pairs of eyes are better than one. Unintentional 
and unnecessary omissions might have been avoided, and 
questionable or erroneous statements might have been 
amended, if the writer had had the advantage of another’s 
supervision, Even in the humble but important work of 


PREFACE v 


detecting misprints the gain of having a different reviser is 
great. Only those who have had the experience know how 
easy it is for the same eye to pass the same mistakes again 
and again. 

If this commentary has any special features, they will 
perhaps be found in the illustrations taken from Jewish 
writings, in the abundance of references to the Septuagint 
and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in 
the frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin Versions, 
and in the attention which has been paid, both in the 
Introduction and throughout the Notes, to the marks of S. 
Luke’s style. 

The illustrations from Jewish writings have been sup- 
plied, not because the writer has made any special study 
of them, but because it is becoming recognized that the 
pseudepigraphical writings of the Jews and early Jewish 
Christians are now among the most promising helps 
towards understanding the New Testament; and because 
these writings have of late years become much more 
accessible than formerly, notably by the excellent editions 
of the Book of Enoch by Mr. Charles, of the Psa/ms of 
Solomon by Professor Ryle and Dr. James, and of the 
Fourth Book of Ezra by the late Professor Bensly and Dr. 
James.? 

A very eminent scholar has said that the best com- 
mentary on the New Testament is a good Concordance; 
and another venerable scholar is reported to have said that 
the best commentary on the New Testament is the Vulgate. 
There is truth in both these sayings: and, with regard to 
the second of them, if the Vulgate by itself is helpful, a2 
fortiori the Vulgate side by side with the Latin Versions 
which preceded it is likely to be helpful. An effort has 


1 For general information on these Jewish writings see Schiirer, Hast. of the 
Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 1886, Div. II. vol. iii. ; 
W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, Edinburgh, 1891 ; J. Winter und A. Wiinsche, 
Die jidische Literatur sett Abschiuss des Kanons, Trier: Part III. has just 


appeared. 


472848 


vi PREFACE 


been made to render those who use this commentary to a 
large extent independent of a Concordance, and to some 
extent independent of the invaluable edition of the Vulgate 
now being produced by the Bishop of Salisbury and Mr. 
White. Great trouble has been taken with the numerous 
references to the Septuagint, the books of the New Testa- 
ment, and other writings. The large majority of them 
have been verified at least twice. But the difficulty of 
excluding error in such things is so great that the writer 
cannot suppose that he has succeeded in doing so. It is 
possible that a few references have accidentally escaped 
verification. A very few have been knowingly admitted 
without it, because the reference seemed to be of value, 
the source was trustworthy, and verification was not easy. | 
Reasons are stated in the Introduction for regarding a 
study of S. Luke’s style as a matter of great interest and 
importance; and it is hoped that the analysis given of it 
there will be found useful. A minute acquaintance with it 
tells us something about the writer of the Third Gospel. 
It proves to us that he is identical with the writer of the 
Acts, and that the whole of both these books comes from 
his hand. And it justifies us in accepting the unswerving 
tradition of the first eight or nine centuries, that the writer 
of these two books was Luke the beloved physician. 
Dogma in the polemical sense is excluded from the plan 
of these commentaries. It is not the business of the com- 
mentator to advocate this or that belief. But dogma in the 
historical sense must of necessity be conspicuous in a com- 
mentary on any one of the Gospels. It is a primary duty 
of a commentator to ascertain the convictions of the 
writer whose statements he undertakes to explain. This 
is specially true of the Third Gospel, whose author tells 
us that he wrote for the very purpose of exhibiting the 
historical basis of the Christian faith (i. 1-4). The 
Evangelist assures Theophilus, and with him all other 
Christians, that he knows, upon first-hand and carefully 


PREFACE vil 


investigated evidence, that at a definite point in the history 
of the world, not far removed from his own time, a Prophet 
of God once more appeared in Israel to herald the coming 
of the Christ (iii. 1-6), and that his appearance was im- 
mediately followed by that of the Christ Himself (iii. 23, 
iv. 14, 15), whose Ministry, Passion, Death, and Resur- 
rection he then narrates in detail. On all these points 
the student is again and again met by the question, What 
does the Evangelist mean? And, although about this 
or that word or sentence there may often be room for 
discussion, about the meaning of the Gospel as a whole 
there is no doubt. If we ask what were “the things 
wherein” Theophilus “was instructed” and of “the 
certainty ” concerning which he is assured, the answer is 
not difficult. We may take the Old Roman Creed as a 
convenient summary of it. 


Muotevw eis Gcdv watépa mavroxpdtopa (i. 37, iii. 8, xi. 2—4, 
xii, 32, etc.). Kat eis Xprotév “Inoniy, uidv adtod tdv povoyerh 
(i. 31, fi. 21, 49, ix. 35, X. 21, 22, xxii, 29, 70, xxiii. [33] 46: 
comp. iv. 41, Vili. 28), Tov KUpioy tpov (i. 43, ii. 11, Vii. 13, xX. 1, 
xi. 39, xii. 42, xvii 5, 6, xix. 8, 31, xxii, 61, xxiv. 3, 34) Tov 
yevrnPévra éx mvedpatos dyiou Kal Mapias tis mapOdvou (i.31-35, 43, 
ii, 6, 7), tev éwt Movtiou Mudtou oraupobévra Kai tapévta (xxii, 
Xxili.), TH tpity hepa dvactdvra éx vexpav (xxiv. 1-49), dvaBdvra 
cis Tods odpavots (xxiv. 50-53), Ka0jpevoy év Seéia tod marpds 
(xxii. 69), S0ev Epxetat Kpivar Lavras Kal vexpods (comp. ix. 26, 
xii. 35-48, xviii. 8). Kat eis mvedpa dyvov (i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 26, 
iv. I, 14, Xl. 13, Xli, 10, 12)* dytav éxxAnolav (comp. i. 74, 75, 
ix. 1-6, x. 1-16, xxiv. 49)" ddeow duaptiay (i. 77, iii. 3, xxiv. 47)° 
capKos dvdotacw (xiv. 14, XX. 27-40). 

The Evangelist’s own convictions on most of these 
points are manifest; and we need not doubt that they 
include the principal things in which Theophilus had been 
instructed, and which the writer of the Gospel solemnly 
affirms to be well established. Whether in our eyes they 


viii PREFACB 


are well established depends upon the estimate which we 
form of his testimony. Is he a truth-loving and competent 
witness? Does the picture which he draws agree with 
what can be known from other authorities? Could he or 
his informants have invented the words and works which 
he attributes to Jesus Christ? A patient and fair student 
of the Third Gospel will not be at a loss for an answer. 


ALFRED PLUMMER. 


University College, Durham, 
Feast of S. Luke, 1896. 


mi 
i) 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION “Shoe kesh 

§ 1. The Author Gout Ma kd fo 
was the Author of the Acts . 

a Companion of S. Paul 
SKE rich, - a) she 
S. Luke the Evangelist . . 

§ The Sources of the Gospel ° 
No Ebionite Source . e 
Supposed Dislike of Duplicates 

§ 4. Time and Place. = : e 

So Object and Plan. ~. «. « 
Analysis of the Gospel. 

§ 6. Characteristics, Style, and Language 
The Gospel of S. Paul. 

of Prayer. . 
of Praise . . 
“terary, historic, domestic 
S. uke’s Command of Greek 
Ex; essions peculiar to S. Luke 
tohimandS. Paul. . 
to both with Hebrews . 
to S. Luke with Hebrews 
Expressions frequent in S. Luke 
possibly medical . 
His Diction compared aa that of 
andS. Mark . 

§ 7. The Integrity of the Gospel 

Soo.Phe:rext (03!) <. *' 

§ 9. Literary History ° 
Clement of Rome. 
The Didaché . ° 
Gospel of Peter . 
Testaments of XII. Patriarchs 


ix 


Sel sta ewel alnseel c. wvine We pita ele ese “ee te a6 As (Ole ae nee 


: 
i 


EEE, 


oReubttebul lela blues EI 


ay 


Ei 


ey 


$10. Commentaries . .« «© ec 
Abbreviations . « eo e 


COMMENTARY e e e e e 


SPECIAL NOTES 
On the use of éyévero «lw 
The Decree of Augustus ° 
The fifteenth year of Tiberius 
The Genealogy . ° - 
Demoniacal Possession. . 
The Miraculous Draught of Fishes 
The title “Son of Man” ears 
The word devrepompdro. . e 
The Sermon éri rérov redtyod =n 
Christ’s Raising the Dead . 
The Journeyings towards Jerusalem 
The word dvadnpis 2. wi‘ 
The Mission of the Seventy... 


The Idea of Hades or Sheol in the O. 


The Blind Manat Jericho . . 
The Parable of the Pounds . 
The Question about Psalmcx. . 
The Apocalypse of Jesus . . 
Readings in Chapters xxii. and xxiii. 
The Narratives of the Resurrection 
Western Non-interpolations . . 
Interpolations in the Sinaitic Syriac 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 
I. General . . 1. 
II. Writers and Writings . 
III. Greek Words . - 
IV. English and Latin Words 


T. 


e oe @ e e e e e 


INTRODUCTION. 


§ 1. THE AUTHOR. 


As in the case of the other Gospels, the author is not named in 
the book itself. But two things may be regarded as practically 
certain, and a third as highly probable in itself and much more 
probable than any other hypothesis. (i.) The author of the Third 
Gospel is the author of the Acts. (ii.) The author of the Acts 
was a companion of S. Paul. (iii.) This companion was S. Luke. 


(i.) Zhe Author of the Third Gospel is the Author of the Acts. 


This position is so generally admitted by critics of all schools 
that not much time need be spent in discussing it. Both books 
are dedicated to Theophilus. The later book refers to the former. 
The language and style and arrangement of the two books are so 
similar, and this similarity is found to exist in such a multitude of 
details (many of which are very minute), that the hypothesis of 
careful imitation by a different writer is absolutely excluded. The 
idea of minute literary analysis with a view to discover peculiarities 
and preferences in language was an idea foreign to the writers of 
the first two centuries; and no known writer of that age gives 
evidence of the immense skill which would be necessary in order 
to employ the results of such an analysis for the production of an 
elaborate imitation. To suppose that the author of the Acts 
carefully imitated the Third Gospel, in order that his work might 
be attributed to the Evangelist, or that the Evangelist carefully 
imitated the Acts, in order that his Gospel might be attributed to 
the author of the Acts, is to postulate a literary miracle. Such an 
idea would not have occurred to any one; and if it had, he would 
not have been able to execute it with such triumphant success 
as is conspicuous here. Any one who will underline in a few 
chapters of the Third Gospel the phrases, words, and constructions 
which are specially frequent in the book, and then underline the 

x1 


xii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 1. 


same phrases, words, and constructions wherever they occur in the 
Acts, will soon have a strong conviction respecting the identity of 
authorship. The converse process will lead to a similar result. 
Moreover, the expressions which can be marked in this way by no 
means exhaust the points of similarity between the two books. 
There are parallels of description ; e.g. about angelic appearances 
(comp. Lk. i. 11 with Acts xii. 7; Lk. i. 38 with Acts 1. 11 and 
x. 7; Lk. ii. 9 and xxiv. 4 with Acts i. 10 and x. 30); and about 
other matters (comp. Lk. i. 39 with Acts i. 15; Lk. ii. 39 with 
Acts xiii. 29; Lk. ili. 8 with Acts xxvi. 20; Lk. xx. 1 with Acts 
iv. 1; Lk. xxi. 18 with Acts xxvii. 34; Lk. xxi. 35 with Acts 
xvii. 26; Lk. xxiii. 2 with Acts xxiv. 2-5; Lk. xxiii. 5 with Acts 
x. 373 Lk. xxiv. 27 with Acts viii. 35).! And there are parallels 
of arrangement. The main portion of the Gospel has three marked 
divisions: The Ministry zz Gadilee (iii. 1-1x. 50), between Galilee 
and Jerusalem (ix. 51—xix. 28), and im Jerusalem (xix. 29-Xxiv. 11). 
And the main portion of the Acts has three marked divisions: 
Hebraic (ii.—v.), Transitional (vi.—xii.), and Gentile (xiti.—xxviii.). 
In the one case the movement is from Galilee through Samaria, 
etc. to Jerusalem: in the other from Jerusalem through Samaria, 
etc. to Rome. And in both cases there is an introduction con- 
necting the main narrative with what precedes. 


(ii.) Zhe Author of Acts was a Companion of S. Paul. 


A full discussion of this statement belongs to the commentary 
on the Acts rather than to the present volume: but the main 
points in the evidence must be noted here. It is perhaps no 
exaggeration to say that nothing in biblical criticism is more 
certain than this statement. 

There are the “we” sections in which the writer uses the first 
person plural in describing journeys of S. Paul. This “we” is 
found in Codex Bezae as early as xi. 28 at Antioch, and may 
represent a true tradition without being the original reading.” 
It appears certainly xvi. 10 at Troas* and continues to Philippi 
(xvi. 17). Several years later it reappears at Philippi (xx. 5)® and 
continues to Jerusalem (xxi. 18). Finally, it reappears at the 
departure for Italy (xxvii. 1)* and continues to Rome (xxviii. 16).® 


1 J. Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Afostelgeschichte Werke 
desselben Verfassers, Halle a.S., 1890. The value of this useful pamphlet is 
somewhat lessened by want of care in sifting the readings. The argument as a 
whole stands; but the statistics on which it is based are often not exact. 

2 For dvacras 6é els €€ atrav D has oUvEoT pay pevey 6é quay épn els && 
airay, revertentibus autem nobis ait unus ex ipsis. This reading is also found 
in Augustine (De Serm. Dom. ii. 7 [xvii. )). 

3 étprjcaper éfehOeciv. iuiv expafer. 5 uevoy Hpas. 

6 elayer 6 Laddos ody quiv. 770d dwomdety quads. * elofdOapev els ‘Puynr. 


§1.] THE AUTHOR xiii 


The “we” necessarily implies companionship, and may possibly 
represent a diary kept at the time. That the “we” sections are 
by the same hand as the rest of the book is shown by the simple 
and natural way in which they fit into the narrative, by the refer- 
ences in them to other parts of the narrative, and by the marked 
identity of style. The expressions which are so characteristic of 
this writer run right through the whole book. They are as 
frequent inside as outside the “we” sections, and no change of 
style can be noted between them and the rest of the treatise. 
The change of person is intelligible and truthlike, distinguishing 
the times when the writer was with the Apostle from the times 
when he was not: but there is otherwise no change of language. 
To these points must be added the fact that thé author of the 
Acts is evidently a person of considerable literary powers, and the 
probability that a companion of S. Paul who possessed such 
powers would employ them in producing such a narrative as the 
Acts. 


(iii.) Zhe Companion of S. Paul who wrote the Acts and the 
Third Gospel was S. Luke. 


Of the companions of S. Paul whose names are known to us 
no one is so probable as S. Luke; and the voice of the first eight 
centuries pronounces strongly for him and for no one else as the 
author of these two writings. 

If antiquity were silent on the subject, no more reasonable 
conjecture could be made than “ Luke the beloved physician.” 
He fulfils the conditions. Luke was the Apostle’s companion 
during both the Roman imprisonments (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; 
2 Tim. iv. 11), and may well have been his companion at other 
times. That he is not mentioned in the earlier groups of Epistles 
is no objection ; for none of them coincide with the ‘‘ we” sections 
in the Acts. Moreover, the argument from medical language, 
although sometimes exaggerated, is solid and helpful. Both in 
the Acts and in the Third Gospel there are expressions which are 
distinctly medical; and there is also a good deal of language 
which is perhaps more common in medical writers than elsewhere. 
This feature does not amount to proof that the author was a 
physician ; still less can it prove that, if the author was a physician, 
he must have been Luke. The Apostle might have had another 
medical companion besides the beloved physician. But, seeing 
that there is abundance of evidence that Luke was the writer of 
these two documents, the medical colour which is discernible here 
and there in the language of each of them is a valuable con- 
firmation of the evidence which assigns the authorship of both to 
Luke. 


xiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 2. 


For the voice of antiquity is not silent on the subject ; and we 
are not left to conjecture. There is no need to argue whether 
Timothy, or Titus, or Silas, or some unnamed companion of the 
Apostle is more likely than S. Luke to have written these two 
books. The evidence, which is both abundant and strong, is 
wholly in favour of Luke. Until we reach the blundering state- 
ment in Photius near the end of the ninth century, there is no 
hint that any one ever thought of any person but Luke as the 
author of either treatise. Photius has this statement: “Some 
say that the writer of the Acts was Clement of Rome, others 
Barnabas, and others again Luke the Evangelist; but Luke 
himself decides the question, for at the beginning of his preface 
he mentions that another treatise containing the acts of the Lord 
had been composed by him” (Ampfi?. Qu. 123). Here he seems 
to be transferring to the Acts conjectures which had been made 
respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews. But at any rate the 
statement shows that the Third Gospel was regarded as un- 
questionably by Luke. 

The Pauline authorship of Romans and Galatians is now com- 
monly regarded as certain, and the critic who questions it is held 
to stultify himself. But is not the evidence for the Lucan author- 
ship of the Third Gospel and the Acts equally strong? If these 
are not named by any writer earlier than Irenzeus, neither are 
those Epistles. And the silence of the Apostolic Fathers respect- 
ing the Third Gospel and the Acts is even more intelligible than 
their silence respecting Galatians and Romans, because the two 
former, being addressed to Theophilus, were in the first instance 
of the nature of private writings, and because, as regards the 
Gospel narrative, the oral tradition still sufficed. But from 
Irenzus onwards the evidence in all these cases is full and 
unwavering, and it comes from all quarters of the Christian 
world. And in considering this third point, the first point must 
be kept steadily in view, viz. the certainty that the Third Gospel 
and the Acts were written by one and the same person. Con- 
sequently all the evidence for either book singly is available for 
the other book. Every writer who attributes the Third Gospel 
to Luke thereby attributes the Acts to Luke and vice verséd, 
whether he know anything about the second book or not. Thus — 
in favour of Luke as the author of the Third Gospel we have 
three classes of witnesses: viz. those who state that Luke wrote 
the Third Gospel, those who state that Luke wrote the Acts, and 
those who state that he wrote both treatises. Their combined 
testimony is very strong indeed; and there is nothing against it. 
At the opening of his commentary on the Acts, Chrysostom says 
that many in his day were ignorant of the authorship and even of 
the existence of the book (Migne, lx. 13). But that statement 


§1]} THE AUTHOR xv 


creates no difficulty. Many could be found at the present day, 
even among educated Christians, who could not name the author 
of the Acts. And we have seen that the late and confused state- 
ment in Photius, whatever it may mean respecting the Acts, 
testifies to the universal conviction that the Third Gospel was 
written by Luke. 

But we obtain a very imperfect idea of the early evidence in 
favour of the Third Gospel when we content ourselves with the 
statement that it is not attributed to Luke by any one before 
Irenzeus and the Muratorian Fragment, which may be a little 
earlier than the work of Irenzus, but is probably a little later. 
We must consider the evidence of the existence of this Gospel 
previous to Irenzus; and also the manner in which he himself 
and those who immediately follow him speak of it as the work of 
S. Luke. 

That Justin Martyr used the Third Gospel (or an authority 
which was practically identical with it) cannot be doubted. He 
gives a variety of particulars which are found in that Gospel 
alone ; ¢.g. Elizabeth as the mother of the Baptist, the sending of 
Gabriel to Mary, the census under Quirinius, there being no room 
in the inn, His ministry beginning when Jesus was thirty years 
old, His being sent by Pilate to Herod, His last cry, “ Father, into 
Thy hands I commend My spirit” (1 Afol. xxxiv.; Z7ry. 
Ixxxvili., C., Ciii., cv., cvi.). Moreover, Justin uses expressions 
respecting the Agony, the Resurrection, and the Ascension which 
show that the Third Gospel is in his mind. 

That his pupil Tatian possessed this Gospel is proved by the 
Diatessaron. See Hemphill, Diatessaron of Tatian, pp. 3 ff. 

Celsus also knew the Third Gospel, for he knew that one of 
the genealogies made Jesus to be descended from the first man 
(Orig. Con. Cels. ii. 32) 

The Clementine Homilies contain similarities which are pro- 
ably allusions (iii. 63, 65, xi. 20, 23, xvii. 5, xvili. 16, xix. 2). 

The Third Gospel was known to Basilides and Valentinus, and 
was commented upon by Heracleon (Clem. Alex. S¢vom. iv. 9, 
p. 596, ed. Potter). 

Marcion adopted this Gospel as the basis for what he called 
the “Gospel of the Lord” or “Gospel of Christ.” He omitted a 
good deal as being inconsistent with his own teaching, but he 
does not appear to have added anything. See § 7; also Wsctt., 
is to Gospels, App. D; Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, 

Pp: 
In the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to the 
Churches in Asia there is a quotation of Lk. i. 6 (Eus. HZ. v. 1. 9). 


1 What Pseudo-Tert. says of Cerdo is perhaps a mere transfer to Cerdo of 
what is known of Marcion. 


xvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 1. 


These instances, which are by no means exhaustive, may suffice 
as evidence for the early existence of the Third Gospel. It re 
mains to notice the way in which Irenzus and his later contem- 
poraries speak of the book. Irenzus, who represents the traditions 
of Asia Minor and Rome and Gaul in the second half of the 
second century, quotes it many times and quotes from nearly every 
chapter, especially from those which are wholly or in the main 
peculiar to this Gospel, e.g. i., ii., ix—xix., xxiv. In a very remark- 
able passage he collects together many of the things which this 
Gospel alone narrates and definitely assigns them to Luke: “ Now 
if any one reject Luke, as if he did not know the truth, he will 
manifestly be casting out the Gospel of which he claims to be a 
disciple. For very many and specially necessary elements of the 
Gospel we know through him, as the generation of John, the 
history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary,” etc. etc. 
(ili. 14. 3. Comp. iii. 10. 1, 22. 4, 12. 12, 14. 4, etc.). It will be 
observed that he does not contemplate the possibility of any one 
denying that Luke was the author. Those who may reject it will 
do so as thinking that Luke’s authority is inadequate; but the 
authorship is unquestioned. 

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190-202) had had teachers from 
Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Palestine, and had received the tradition 
handed down from father to son from the Apostles (Strom. i. 1, 
p- 322, ed. Potter). He quotes the Gospel very frequently, and 
from many parts of it. He definitely assigns it to Luke (Strom. 
i. 21, p. 407, ed. Potter). 

Tertullian (A.D. 190-220) speaks for the African Church. He 
not only quotes the Gospel frequently in his other works, but in 
his treatise against Marcion he works through the Gospel from 
ch. iv. to the end, often calling it Luke’s. 

The Muratorian Fragment (A.D. 170-200) perhaps represents 
Rome. The first line of the mutilated Catalogue probably refers 
to S. Mark; but the next seven unquestionably refer to S. Luke, 
who is twice mentioned and is spoken of as medicus. (See Lft. on 
Supernatural Religion, p. 189.) 

It would be waste of time to cite more evidence. It is mani- 
fest that in all parts of the Christian world the Third Gospel had 
been recognized as authoritative before the middle of the second 
century, and that it was universally believed to be the work of 
5. Luke. No one speaks doubtfully on the point. The possibility 
of questioning its value is mentioned; but not of questioning its 
authorship. In the literature of that period it would not be easy 
to find a stronger case. The authorship of the four great Epistles 
of S. Paul is scarcely more certain. In all these cases, as soon as 
we have sufficient material for arriving at a conclusion, the evidence 
is found to be all on one side and to be decisive. And exactly 


§1.) THE AUTHOR xvii 


the same result is obtained when the question is examined as to 
the authorship of the Acts, as Bishop Lightfoot has shown (art. 
“ Acts” in D.Z.*). Both the direct and the indirect argument for 
the Lucan authorship is very strong. 

With this large body of historical evidence in favour of S. Luke 
before us, confirmed as it is by the medical expressions in both 
books, it is idle to search for another companion of S. Paul who 
might have been the author. Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, 
Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, and Trophimus are all excluded by 
Acts xx. 4, 5. And it is not easy to make Silas fit into the “ we” 
sections. ‘Titus is possible: he can be included in the “we” and 
the “us” without contradiction or difficulty. But what is gained 
by this suggestion? Is a solution which is supported by no evi- 
dence to be preferred to an intrinsically more probable solution, 
which is supported by a great deal of evidence, and by evidence 
which is as early as we can reasonably expect? 

Those who neglect this evidence are bound to explain its 
existence. Irenzeus, Clement, and Tertullian, to say nothing of 
other authorities, treat the Lucan authorship as a certainty. So far 
as their knowledge extends, Luke is everywhere regarded as the 
writer. How did this belief grow up and spread, if it was not 
true? There is nothing in either treatise to suggest Luke, and he 
is not prominent enough in Scripture to make him universally 
acceptable as a conjecture. Those who wanted apostolic authority 
for their own views would have made their views more conspicuous 
in these books, and would have assigned the books to a person of 
higher position and influence than the beloved physician, e.g. to 
Timothy or Titus, if not to an Apostle. As Renan says, ‘There 
is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the 
author of the Gospel which bears his name. Luke was not yet 
sufficiently famous for any one to make use of his name, to give 
authority to a book” (Les Lvangzles, ch. xiii. p. 252, Eng. tr.. 
p. 132). “The placing of a celebrated name at the head of a 
work . . . was in no way repugnant to the custom of the times. 
But to place at the head of a document a false name and an 
obscure one withal, that is inconceivable. . . . Luke had no place 
in aa in legend, in history” (Les Ajétres, p. xvii., Eng. tr. 
Pp 1).? 


1 Even Jiilicher still talks of ‘‘ the silence of Papias” as an objection (Zzv/. 
tn das N.T. § 27, 3, Leipzig, 1894). In the case of a writer of whose work 
only a few fragments are extant, how can we know what was not mentioned in 
the much larger portions which have perished? The probabilities, in the 
absence of evidence, are that Papias did write of Luke. But we are not quite 
without evidence. In the ‘‘ Hexeemeron” of Anastasius of Sinai is a passage in 
which Papias is mentioned as an ancient interpreter, and in which Lk, x. 18 is 
quoted in illustration of an interpretation. Possibly the illustration is borrowed 
from oe Lft. Supernatural Religion, pp. 186, 200. Hilgenfeld thinks 


xV111 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 2. 


§ 2. S. LUKE THE EVANGELIST. 


The name Lucas is probably an abbreviation of Lucanus, but 
possibly of Lucilius, or Lucius, or Lucianus. ‘There is, however, 
no froof that Iucanus was shortened into Lucas.!_ Nevertheless 
some of the oldest Latin MSS. (e.g. Cordetensis and Vercellensis) 
have secundum Lucanum as the title of the Third Gospel. Lucas, 
like Apollos, Artemas, Demas, Hermas, and Nymphas, is a form 
not found in classical literature, whereas Lucanus is common in 
inscriptions. Lobeck has noticed that these contracted proper 
names in -és are common in the case of slaves (Fatholog. Proleg. 
p- 506). Slaves were sometimes physicians, and S. Luke may 
have been a freedman. Antistius, the surgeon of Julius Cesar, 
and Antonius Musa, the physician of Augustus, were freedmen. 

That Lucas=Lucanus is probable. But that Lucanus=Silvanus, because 
lucus=stlva, and that therefore Luke and Silas are the same person (Van 
Vloten), looks like a caricature of critical ingenuity. Equally grotesque is the 


idea that Luke is the Aristion of Papias (Eus. Z. Z. iii. 39. 4, 6), because dpic- 
Tevew =lucere (Lange). 


Only in three places is Lk. zamed in Scripture ; and it is worth 
noting that in all three of them the other Evangelist who is not an 
Apostle is named with him (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 
iv. 11). These passages tell us that “the physician, the beloved 
one” (6 iatpds 6 dyayrds),® was with S. Paul during the first 
Roman imprisonment, when the Epistles to the Colossians and to 
Philemon were written, and also during the second imprisonment, 
when 2 Timothy was written. Besides telling us that Luke was a 
physician very dear to the Apostle, they also tell us that he was his 
“ fellow-worker ” in spreading the Gospel. But apparently he was 
not his ‘fellow-prisoner.” In Col. iv. 10 Aristarchus is called 
ovvatxudAwros, and in Philem. 23 Epaphras is called such ; but Lk. 
in neither place. 

Almost all critics are agreed that in Col. iv. 14 Luke is 


that the preface to Papias shows that he was acquainted with the preface 
to Luke. Salmon is disposed to agree with him (Zr. p. 90, ed. 5). 

1The argument from the Greek form (that Aevxavds, not Aovuxarés, is the 
equivalent of Lucanus) is inconclusive. After about A.D. 50 forms in Aovx- 
begin to take the place of forms in Aeuk-. 

2Comp. Annas for Ananus; Apollos for Apollonius (Codex Bezae, Acts 
xviii. 24); Artemas for Artemidorus (Tit. iii, 12; Mart. v. 40); Cleopas for 
Cleopatros; Demas for Demetrius, Demarchus for Demaratus, Nymphas for 
Nymphodorus, Zenas for Zenodorus, and possibly Hermas for Hermodorus, 
For other examples see Win. xvi. 5, p. 127; Lft. on Col. iv. 15 ; Chandler, 
Grk, Accent. § 34. 

3 Marcion omitted these words, perhaps because he thought that an Evan- 
gelist ought not to devote-himself to anything so contemptible as the human 
body ( Zexte und Unters. viii. 4, p. 40). 


22.] Ss. LUKE THE EVANGELIST xix 


separated from ‘‘those of the circumcision,” and therefore was a_ 
Gentile Christian.1 Hofmann, Tiele, and Wittichen have not suc- 
ceeded in persuading many persons that the passage does not 
necessarily imply this. Whether he was a Jewish proselyte before 
he was a Christian must remain uncertain: his knowledge of 
Jewish affairs and his frequent Hebraisms are no proof. That he 
was originally a heathen may be regarded as certain. He is the 
only one of the Evangelists who was of Gentile origin; and, with 
the exception of his companion S. Paul, and possibly of Apollos, 
he was the only one among the first preachers of the Gospel who 
had had scientific training. 

If Luke was a Gentile, he cannot be identified with Lucius, 
who sends a salutation from Corinth to Rome (Rom. xvi. 21). This 
Lucius was Paul’s kinsman, and therefore a Jew. ‘The identifica- 
tion of Luke with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 1) is less impossible. 
But there is no evidence, and we do not even know that Lucas 
was ever used as an abbreviation of Lucius. In <Afgost. Const. 
_ vi. 18. 5 Luke is distinguished from Lucius. Nor can he be iden- 
tified with Silas or Silvanus, who was evidently a Jew (Acts xv. 22). 
Nor can a Gentile have been one of the Seventy, a tradition which 
seems to have been adopted by those who made LK. x. 1-7 the 
Gospel for S. Luke’s Day. ‘The tradition probably is based solely 
on the fact that Luke alone records the Mission of the Seventy 
(Epiph. “er. ii. 51. 11, Migne, xli. 908). The same reason is fatal 
to Theophylact’s attractive guess, which still finds advocates, that 
Lk. was the unnamed companion of Cleopas in the walk to 
Emmaus (xxiv. 13), who was doubtless a Jew (vu. 27, 32). The 
conjecture that Luke was one of the Greek proselytes who applied 
to Philip to be introduced to Christ shortly before His Passion 
(Jn. xii. 20) is another conjecture which is less impossible, but is 
without evidence. In common with some of the preceding guesses 
it is open to the objection that Luke, in the preface to his Gospel, 
separates himself from those “who from the beginning were eye- 
witnesses and ministers of the word” (i. 2). The Seventy, these 
Greeks, and the companion of Cleopas were eye-witnesses, and 
Lk. was not. In the two latter cases it is possible to evade this 
objection by saying that Luke means that he was not an eye-witness 
from the beginning, although at the end of Christ’s ministry he 
became such. But this is not satisfactory. He claims to be 
believed because of the accuracy of his researches among the best 

1 Of the six who send greetings, the first three (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus 
Justus) are doubly bracketed together: (1) as ol Byres éx mepitoujs, (2) as pdvor 
ouvepyol els THv Bacthelav Tod Qeod, z.e. the only Jewish converts in Rome who 
loyally supported S. Paul. The second three (Epaphras, Luke, Demas) are not 
bracketed together. In Philem. 23 Epaphras is cuvatyuddAwros, and Mark, 


ee ee, Demas, and Luke are of cuvepyol ov, while Justus is not men- 
tioned. 


xx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 2 


authorities. Had he himself been an eye-witness of any portion, 
would he not have let us know this? Why did he not use the first 
person, as in the “we” sections in the Acts? He belongs to the 
second generation of Christians, not to the first. 

It is, however, possible that Chrysostom and the Collect for 
S. Luke’s Day are right in identifying “the brother whose praise 
in the Gospel is spread through all the Churches” (2 Cor. viii. 18) 
with S Luke. But the conjectures respecting this unnamed 
brother are endless ; and no more can be affirmed than that Luke 
is a reasonable conjecture. 


The attempt to show that the writer of the Third Gospel and ees Acts is a 
Jew is a failure ; and the suggestion that he is S. Paul is absurd. See below 
(§ 5) for evidence that our Evangelist is a Gentile writing for Gentiles, 


Besides the three passages in the Pauline Epistles and the 
preface to the Gospel, there are three passages of Scripture which 
tell us something about S. Luke, viz. the “we” sections. The first 
of these (Acts xvi. 10-17) tells us that during the second missionary 
journey Luke accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi (A.D. 51 or 
52), and thus brings the physician to the Apostle about the time 
when his distressing malady (2 Cor. xii. 7) prostrated him in Galatia, 
and thereby led to the conversion of the Galatians (Gal. iv. 13-15). 
Even without this coincidence we might believe that the relation 
of doctor to patient had something to do with drawing Luke to 
the afflicted Apostle, and that in calling him “the physician, the 
beloved one,” the Apostle is not distinguishing him from some 
other Luke, but indicating the way in which the Evangelist earned 
his gratitude. The second section (xx. 5—xxi. 18) tells us that about 
six years later (A.D. 58), during the third missionary journey, Luke 
was again at Philippi! with Paul, and went with him to Jerusalem 
to confer with James and the elders. And the third (xxvii. 1- 
xxviii. 16) shows that he was with him during the voyage and 
shipwreck until the arrival in Rome. 

With these meagre notices of him in the N.T. our knowledge 
of Luke ends. We see him only when he is at the side of his 
magister and illuminator (Tertull. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2) S. Paul. 
That he was with the Apostle at other times also we can hardly 
doubt,—znseparabilis fuit a Paulo, says Ireneus: but how often he 
was with him, and in each case for how long a time, we have no 
means of knowing. ‘Tertullian perhaps means us to understand 
that Luke was converted to the Gospel by Paul, and this is in itself 
probable enough. And it is not improbable that it was at Tarsus. 


1 Renan conjectures that Luke was a native of Philippi. Ramsays takes the . 
game view, suggesting that the Macedonian whom S. Paul saw in a vision (Acts 
xvi. 9) was Luke himself, whom he had just met for the first time at Troas 
(S. Paul the Traveller, p. 202). 


§ 2.) S. LUKE THE EVANGELIST xx 


where there was a school of philosophy and literature rivalling 
those of Alexandria and Athens (Strabo, xiv. 5. 13), that they first 
met. Luke may have studied medicine at Tarsus. Nowhere else 
in Asia Minor could he obtain so good an education: ¢:Aocopiav 
Kal tT. GAAnv aideiav éyxvKAvov aacav (/.c.). Our earliest authori- 
ties appear to know little or nothing beyond what can be found in 
Scripture or inferred from it (Iren. i. 1. 1, 10. 1, 14. I-4, 15. 1, 
22. 3; Canon Murator. sub init.; Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 12 sub 
jin.; Tert. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2). Nor can much that is very 
trustworthy be gleaned from later writers. The statement of 
Eusebius (Z. Z£. iii. 4. 7) and of Jerome (De wir. i. vii.), which 
may possibly be derived from Julius Africanus (Harnack, Zex‘e 
und Unters. viii. 4, p. 39), and is followed by Theophylact, Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus, and Nicephorus, that Luke was by family of 
Antioch in Syria, is perhaps only an inference from the Acts. 
Aovkas 8€ 70 pev yevos dv tay am "Avtioxeias (Eus.) need not mean 
more than that Luke had a family connexion with Antioch ; but it 
, hardy ‘amounts to an assertion that Luke was not an Antiochian.” 
‘67 Jerome says expressly Lucas medicus Antiochensis. This is probable 
in itself and is confirmed by the Acts. Of only one of the deacons 
are we told to which locality he belonged, “‘ Nicolas a proselyte of 
Antioch” (vi. 5)1: and we see elsewhere that the writer was well 
acquainted with Antioch and took an interest in it (xi. 19-27, 
xiii. 1, XIV. 19, 21, 26, xv. 22, 23, 30, 35, XVili. 22). 


Epiphanius states that Luke ‘‘ preached in Dalmatia and Gallia, in Italy and 
Macedonia, but first in Gallia, as Paul says of some of his companions, in his 
Epistles, Crescens in Gallia, for we are not to read 2 Ga/atia, as some errone- 
ously think, but 27 Gallia” (Her. ii. 51. 11, Migne, xli. 908) ; and Oecumenius 
says that Luke went from Rome to preach in Africa. Jerome believes that his 
bones were translated to Constantinople,” and others give Achaia or Bithynia as 
the place of his death. Gregory Nazianzen, in giving an off-hand list of primi- 
tive martyrs—Stephen, Peter, Andrew, etc.—places Luke among them (Orat. 
adv. Jul. i. 79). None of these statements are of any value. 


The legend which makes Luke a painter is much more ancient 
than is sometimes represented. Nicephorus Callistus (&. Z. ii. 43) 
in the fourteenth century is by no means the earliest authority for 
it. Omitting Simeon Metaphrastes (¢c. a.D. 1100) as doubtful, the 
Menology of the Emperor Basil 11., drawn up A.D. 980, represents 


1It has been noted that of eight narratives of the Russian campaign of 
1812, three English, three French, and two Scotch, only the last (Alison and 
Scott) state that the Russian General Barclay de Tolly was of Scotch 
extraction. 

2 His words are: Sepultus est Constantinopoli [vixit octoginta et quatuor 
annos, uxorem non habens] ad guam urbem vicesimo Constantii anno ossa ejus 
cum reliquits Andrew apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia]. The words in 
brackets are not genuine, but are sometimes quoted as such. The first insertion 
is made in more than one place in De vir. ill. vii. 


xxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. 1UKE [§ 2 


S. Luke as painting the portrait of the Vitgin. ‘he oldest witness, 
however, is Theodorus Lector, reader in the Church of Constantin- 
ople in the sixth century. Some place him as late as the eighth 
century ; but the name is common, and between A.D. 500 and 80¢ 
there may have been many readers of that name at Constantinople 
He says that the Empress Eudoxia found at Jerusalem a picture of 
the @coujrwp painted by Luke the AZost/e, and sent it to Constantin- 
ople as a present to her daughter Pulcheria, wife of Theodosius 11. 
(Collectan. i. 7, Migne, Patr. Gr. Ixxxvi. 165). In 1204 this 
picture was brought to Venice. In the Church of S. Maria 
Maggiore at Rome, in the Capella Paolina, is a very ancient picture 
of the Virgin ascribed to S. Luke. It can be traced back to 
A.D. 847, and may be still older.1 But although no such legend 
seems to be known to Augustine, for he says, egue novimus factem 
virginis Mariz (De Trin. viii. 5. 7), yet it is many centuries older 
than Nicephorus (Kraus, Real-Enc. d. Christ. Alt. ii. p. 344, which 
quotes Glukselig, Christus-Archdol. 101; Grimouard de S. Laurent, 
Guide de Part chrét. iii. 15-20). And the legend has a strong ele- 
ment of truth. It points to the great influence which Luke has 
had upon Christian art, of which in a real sense he may be called 
the founder. The Shepherd with the Lost Sheep on His shoulders, 
one of the earliest representations of Christ, comes from Lk. xv 
(Tert. De Pud. vii. and x.): and both medieval and modern artists 
have been specially fond of representing those scenes which are 
described by S. Luke alone: the Annunciation, the Visit of Mary 
to Elizabeth, the Shepherds, the Manger, the Presentation in the 
Temple, Symeon and Anna, Christ with the Doctors, the Woman 
at the Supper of Simon the Pharisee, Christ weeping over Jeru- 
salem, the Walk to Emmaus, the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal 
Son. Many other scenes which are favourites with painters might 
be added from the Acts. See below, § 6. i. d. 

The four symbolical creatures mentioned in Ezek. i. and Rev. 
iv., the Man, the Lion, the Ox, and the Eagle, are variously ex- 
plained by different writers from Irenzus (iii. 11. 8) downwards. 
But all agree in assigning the Ox or Calf to S. Luke. “This 
sacerdotal animal implies Atonement and Propitiation ; and this 
exactly corresponds with what is supposed to be the character of 
St. Luke’s Gospel, as one which more especially conveys mercy to 
the Penitent. . . . It begins with the Priest, dwelling on the 
Priestly family of the Baptist; and ends with the Victim, in our 
Lord’s death” (Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 
Pt. I. sect. vi.). 


1 For an interesting account of this famous picture, and of others attributed 
to the Evangelist, see Ze Madonna of St. Luke, by H. I. Bolton, Putnam, 
1895, 


§3.] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xii 


§ 3. THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL. 


The idea of a special revelation to the Evangelist is excluded 
by the prologue to the Gospel: his narrative is the result of care- 
ful enquiry in the best quarters. But (2) which “eye-witnesses 
and ministers of the word” were his principal informants, 

6) whether their information was mostly oral or documentary, 
3 whether it was mostly in Aramaic or in Greek, are questions 
about which he is silent. Internal evidence, however, will carry 
us some way in finding an answer to them. 

(2) During a large portion of the time in which he was being 
prepared, and was consciously preparing himself, for writing a 
Gospel, he was constantly with S. Paul; and we may be sure that 
it was among S. Paul’s companions and acquaintances that Luke 
obtained much of his information. It is probable that in this way 
he became acquainted with some of the Twelve, with other 
disciples of Christ, and with His Mother and brethren. He 
certainly was acquainted with S. Mark, who was perhaps already 
preparing material for his own Gospel when he and S. Luke were 
with the Apostle in Rome (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24). S. Paul 
himself could tell Luke only that which he himself received (1 Cor. 
xv. 3); but he could help him to first-hand information. While 
the Apostle was detained in custody at Casarea, Luke would be 
able to do a good deal of investigation, and as a physician he would 
perhaps have access to people of position who could help him. 

(4) In discussing the question whether the information was 
given chiefly in an oral or a documentary form, we must remember 
that the difference between oral tradition and a document is not 
great, when the oral tradition has become stereotyped by frequent 
repetition. A document cannot have much influence on a writer 
who already knows its contents by heart. Luke tells us that many 
documents were already in existence, when he decided to write ; 
and it is improbable that he made no use of these. Some of his 
sources were certainly documents, e.g. the genealogy (iii. 23-38) : 
and we need not doubt that the first two chapters are made up of 
written narratives, of which we can see the conclusions at i. 80, 
ii. 40, and ii. 52. The early narrative (itself perhaps not primary), 
of which all three Synoptists make use, and which constitutes the 
main portion of S. Mark’s Gospel, was probably already in writing 
when Lk. made use of it. S. Luke may have had the Second 
Gospel itself, pretty nearly in the form in which we have it, and 
may include the author of it among the zoAdo/ (i. 1). But some 
phenomena are rather against this. Luke omits (vi. 5) “the 
sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mk. 
ii. 27). He omits the whole of Mk. vi. 45-viii. 9, which contains 


xxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO Ss. LUKE [§ 3. 


the digression into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and the incident 
with the Syrophenician woman, which is also in Matthew 
(xv. 21-28). And all this would have been full of interest to 
Luke’s Gentile readers. That he had our First Gospel is much 
less probable. There is so much that he would have been likely 
to appropriate if he had known it, that the omission is most easily 
explained by assuming that he did not know it. He omits the 
visit of the Gentile Magi (Mt. ii. 1-15). At xx. 17 he omits 
“‘ Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away 
from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
thereof” (Mt. xxi. 43). At xxi. r2-16 he omits “ And this gospel 
of the kingdom shad/ be preached in the whole world for a testimony 
unto a// the nations” (Mt. xxiv. 14; comp. Mk. xiii. 10). Comp. 
the omission of Mt. xvii. 6, 7 at Lk. ix. 35, of Mt. xvii. 19, 20 at 
Lk. ix. 43, of Caesarea Philippi (Mt. xvi. 13 ; Mk. viii. 27) at Lk. 
ix. 18; and see p. xli. Both to S. Luke and his readers such 
things would have been most significant. Again, would Luke have 
left the differences between his own Gospel and that of Matthew as 
they are, if he had been aware of them? Contrast Mt. ii. 14, 15 
with Lk. ii. 39, Mt. xxviii. 7, 10, 16 with Lk. xxiv. 49; and gener- 
ally mark the differences between the narratives of the Nativity and 
of the Resurrection in these two Gospels, the divergences in the 
two genealogies, the “eight days” (Lk.) and the “six days” (Mt. 
and Mk.) at the Transfiguration, and the perplexing phenomena in 
the Sermon on the Mount. These points lead us to the conclusion 
that Lk. was not fami/iar with our First Gospel, even if he knew it 
at all. But, besides the early narrative, which seems to have been 
nearly coextensive with our Second Gospel, Matthew and Luke 
used the same collection, or two similar collections, of ‘ Oracles ” 
or “ Sayings of the Lord”; and hence the large amount of matter, 
chiefly discourses, which is common to Matthew and Luke, but is 
not found in Mark. This collection, however, can hardly have 
been a single document, for the common material is used very 
differently by the two Evangelists, especially as regards arrange- 
ment.! A Book of “ Oracles” must not be hastily assumed. 

In addition to these two main sources, (1) the narrative of 
events, which he shares with Matthew and Mark, and (2) the 
collection of discourses, which he shares with Matthew ; and be- 
sides (3) the smaller documents about the Infancy incorporated 
in the first two chapters, which are peculiar to himself,—Luke 

1 There are a few passages which are common to Mark and Luke, but are 
not found in Matthew: the Demoniac (Mk. i. 23-28 = Lk. iv. 33-37); 
the Journey in Galilee (Mk. i. 35-39 = Lk. iv. 42-44); the Request of the 
Demoniac (Mk. v. 18 = Lk. viii. 38); the Complaint of John against the 
Caster out of Demons (Mk. ix. 38 = Lk. ix. 49); the Spices brought to the 


Tomb (Mk. xvi. 1 = Lk. xxiv. 1). Are these the result of the time when 
S. Mark and S. Luke were together (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24) ? 


§3.] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXxv 


evidently had (4) large sources of information respecting the 
Ministry, which are also peculiar to himself. These are specially 
prominent in chapters ix. to xix. and in xxiv. But it must not be 
forgotten that the matter which S. Luke alone gives us extends over 
the whole range of Christ’s life, so far as we have any record of 
it. It is possible that some of these sources were oral, and it is 
probable that one of them was connected with the court of Herod 
(iii. 1, 19, Vili. 3, ix. 7-9, Xiii. 31, xxiii, 7-12; Acts xiii. 1). But 
we shall probably not be wrong if we conjecture that most of this 
material was in writing before Luke made use of it. 

It is, however, begging the question to talk of an “ Zdionitic 
source.” First, is there any Ebionism in §. Luke? And secondly, 
does what is called Ebionism in him come from a portion of his 
materials, or wholly from himself? That Luke is profoundly im- 
pressed by the contrasts between wealth and poverty, and that, 
like S. James, he has great sympathy with the suffering poor and 
a great horror of the temptations which beset all the rich and to 
which many succumb, is true enough. But this is not Ebionism. 
He nowhere teaches that wealth is sinful, or that rich men must 
give away all their wealth, or that the wealthy may be spoiled by 
the poor. In the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which is sup- 
posed to be specially Ebionitic, the rich Abraham is in bliss with 
the beggar, and Lazarus neither denounces on earth the super- 
fluity of Dives, nor triumphs in Hades over the reversal of posi- 
tions. The strongest saying of Christ against wealth, “It is easier 
for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to 
enter into the Kingdom of God” is in Matthew (xix. 24) and Mark 
(x. 25) as well as in Luke (xviii. 25). So also is the story of Peter 
and Andrew, James and John leaving their means of life and 
following Christ (Mt. iv. 18-22; Mk. i. 16-20; Lk. v. 1-11). So 
also is the story of Matthew or Levi leaving his lucrative calling to 
follow Christ (Mt. ix.9; Mk. ii. 14; Lk. v. 27, 28). In both these 
cases Luke expressly states that they forsook aé/ (v. 11, 28), which, 
however, is sufficiently clear from the other narratives. In the 
story about Zacchzus, which is peculiar to Luke, this head tax- 
collector retains half his great wealth, and there is no hint that he 
ought to have surrendered the whole of it. Elsewhere we find 
touches in the other Gospels which are not in Luke, but which 
would no doubt have been considered Ebionitic, if they had been 
found in Luke and not in the others. Thus, in the description of 
the Baptist, it is Matthew (iii. 4) and Mark (i. 6) who tell us of 
John’s ascetic clothing and food, about which Luke is silent. In 
the parable of the Sower it is the others (Mt. xiii. 22; Mk. iv. 19) 
who speak of “ the deceitfulness of riches,” while Luke (viii. 14) has 
simply “riches.” It is they who record (Mt. xix. 29; Mk. x. 29) 
that Christ spoke of the blessedness of leaving relations and Jro- 


xxvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 3. 


erty (dypots) for His sake, where Luke (xviii. 29) omits dypovs. 
He alone preserves Christ’s declaration that he who sits at meat 
is superior to him who serves (xxii. 27), and there is no hint that 
to have servants is wrong. While the others tell us that Joseph 
of Arimathza was a man of rank (Mk. xv. 43) and wealth (Mt. 
xxvil. 57), Luke is much more explicit than they are about his 
goodness and rectitude (xxiii. 50, 51), which does not look like 
prejudice against the rich. And it is Luke alone who tells us of 
the women, presumably well-to-do, who “ ministered unto them of 
their substance” (viii. 3). To which may perhaps be added the 
fact that in the quotation from Ps. cvii. ro in Lk. i. 79 those “fast 
bound in poverty” (zrw yea) are omitted. Throughout the Third 
Gospel there is a protest against worldliness; but there is no 
protest against wealth. And there is no evidence that the protest 
against worldliness is due to some particular source from which he 
drew, and from which the others did not draw. Rather it is 
something in the writer himself, being apparent in the Acts, as 
well as in the Gospel; and it shows itself, sometimes in what he 
selects from his materials, sometimes in the way in which he treats 
it. As Jiilicher says, 1/an hat von dem ebionitischen charakter dieses 
Evang. gesprochen und nach den judischen Einjfiussen oder Quellen 
gesucht: sehr mit Unrecht.... Von tendenzidser Ebionitisirung 
des Evangeliums kann bei ihm nicht die Rede sein (Einl. § 27, 
p. 206). 

(¢) Frequent Hebraisms indicate that a great deal of Luke’s 
material was originally in Aramaic. These features are specially 
common in the first two chapters. In translating Aramaic sources 
Luke would have ample opportunity for exhibiting his own pre- 
dilection for certain words, phrases, and constructions. If the 
materials were already in Greek when Luke made use of them, 
then he could and did somewhat alter the wording in appropriat- 
ing them. But it will generally be found that wherever the ex- 
pressions which are characteristic of him are less frequent than 
usual, there we have come upon material which is common to him 
and the others, and which he has adopted without much alteration. 
Thus the parable of the Sower (viii. 4-15) has few marks of his 
style (€v pécw, ver. 7; 6 Adyos Tod @eod, ver. 11; d€xovrae and 
adioravrat, ver. 13) which are not also in Mt. (rod ovetpar, ver. 5) 
or in both (é& 7 ozetpew, ver. 5). But absence or scarcity of 
Luke’s characteristics is most common in those reports of dis- 
courses which are common to him and Matthew: ¢.g. ill. 7-9, 17= 
Mt. iil. 7-10, 12 ; vil. 6~g = Mt. viii. 8-10; ix. 57, 58 = Mt. viii. 19, 
20; Vii. 22-28 = Mt. x1. 4-11; vii. 31-35 = Mt. xi. 16-19. This last 
passage is one of those which were excised by Marcion. As we 
might expect, there is much more variation between the Gospels 
in narrating the same facts than in reporting the same sayings; 


$8] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXVil 


and the greater the variation, the greater the room for marks of 
individual style. But we cahnot doubt that an immense amount 
of what Luke has in common with Matthew, or with both him 
and Mark, was already in a Greek form before he adopted it. 
It is incredible that two or three independent translations should 
agree quite or almost word for word. 

It is very interesting to notice how, in narratives common to 
all three, individual characteristics appear: e.g. vill. 22-56= Mk. 
iv. 35-41, V. 1-43 = Mt. viii. 23-34, ix. 18-25. These narratives 
swarm with marks of Luke’s style, although he keeps closely to 
the common material (see below, § 6. ii.). Thus he has etzrev zpos 
avrovs, émiatata, Séouar cov, eSeAOciv a2, ikavds, edeiTo avrov, civ, 
broorpepe, Tapa Tovs TOdas, Tapaxpyua, etc., where Mark has dé€yer 
avrots, duddoKade, opKile oe, cEeAOciv ex, pweyas, TapeKdAct avTov, pera, 
Umraye, mpos Tors mddas, evOvs, etc. Moreover Luke has & 76 
¢. infin., Kat odrTos, Kal avrTds, trdpxew, Tas OF Gras, povoyevys, etc., 
where the others have nothing. The following examples will repay 
examination: iv. 38-41 = Mk. 1. 29-34 = Mt. viii. 14-17; v. 12-16 
= Mk. i. 40-45 =Mt. viii. 1-43; v. 17-2 =6Mk. ii, 1-12 = Mt. ix. 
1-8 ; ix. 10-17 = Mk. vi. 30-44 =Mt. xiv. 13-21; ix. 38-40 = Mk. 
ix. 17, 18= Mt. xvii. 15, 16; and many others. It is quite evident 
that in appropriating material Luke works it over with his own 
touches, and sometimes almost works it up afresh; and this is 
specially true of the narrative portion of the Gospel. 

It is impossible to reach any certain conclusion as to the 
amount of material which he had at his disposal. Some suppose 
that this was very large, and that he has given us only a small 
portion of it, selected according to the object which he is sup- 
posed to have had in view, polemical, apologetic, conciliatory, 
or historical. Others think that his aim at completeness is too 
conspicuous to allow us to suppose that he rejected anything 
which he believed to be authentic. Both these views are probably 
exaggerations. No doubt there are cases in which he de/iberately 
omits what he knew well and did not question. And the reason 
for omission may have been either that he had recorded something 
very similar, or that the incident would be less likely to interest or 
edify Gentile readers. No doubt there are other cases in which 
the most natural explanation of the omission is zgzorance: he does 
not record because he does not know. We know of a small amount 
which Mark alone records; of a considerable amount which 
Matthew alone records; of a very considerable amount which 
John alone records; and of an enormous amount (Jn. xxi. 25) 
which no one records. To suppose that Luke knew the great 
part of this, and yet passed it over, is an improbable hypothesis. 
And to suppose that he knew scarcely any of it, is also improbable. 
But a definite estimate cannot be made. 


xxviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [§ 8. 


The statement that Luke avoids duplicates on principle has been 
made and accepted too hastily. It is quite possible that he has 
deliberately omitted some things, because of their similarity to 
others which he has recorded. It is possible that he has omitted 
the feeding of the 4000, because he has recorded the feeding of 
the 5000; and the anointing by Mary of Bethany, because of the 
anointing by the sinner; and the healing of the Syrophenician’s 
daughter at a distance, because of the centurion’s servant at a 
distance ; and the cursing of the barren fig-tree, because of the 
parable of the same; and the mocking by Pilate’s soldiers, because 
of the mocking by Herod’s soldiers. But in many, or even most, 
of these cases some other motive may have caused the omission. 
On the other hand, we must look at the doublets and triplets 
which he has admitted. If he made it a rule to exclude duplicates, 
the exceptions are more numerous than the examples, and they 
extend all through the Gospel. 

The Mother of the Christ has a song (i. 46 ff.), and the father of 
the Baptist has a song (68 ff.). The venerable Simeon welcomes 
the infant Christ in the temple (ii. 28), and so does the venerable 
Anna (38). Levi the publican is converted and entertains Jesus 
(v. 27 ff.), and Zacchzeus the publican also (xix. 1 ff.). The 
mission of the Twelve (ix. 1) is followed by the mission of the 
Seventy (x. 1). True disciples are equal to Christ’s relations 
(viii. 21), and to His Mother (xi. 28). Twice there is a dispute as 
to who is the greatest (ix. 46, xxii. 24). Not content with the 
doublets which he has in common with Mt. (viii. 19-22, ix. 16, 17, 
xxiv. 40, 41), he adds a third instance (ix. 61, 62, v. 39, xvil. 36?) ; 
or where Mt. has only one example (xxiv. 37-39), he gives two 
(xvii. 26-29). So also in the miracles. We have the widow’s son 
raised (vii. 14), and also Jairus’ daughter (viii. 54), where no other 
Evangelist gives more than one example. There are two instances 
of cleansing lepers (v. 13, xvii. 14); two of forgiving sins (v. 20, 
vii. 48); three healings on the sabbath (vi. 6, xiii. 10, xiv. 1); 
four castings out of demons (iv. 35, viii. 29, ix. 42, xi. 14). Similar 
repetition is found in the parables. The Rash Builder is followed 
by the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), the Lost Sheep by the Lost Coin 
(xv. 1-10); and the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5) does not involve 
the omission of the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1). The exceptions 
to the supposed principle are still more numerous in the shorter 
sayings of Christ: viii, 16=xi. 33; vill. 17=xii. 2; vili. 18 = xix. 
26; 1X. 23 =XIV. 27; 1X. 24=XVll. 33; 1x. 26—=xil_ 9; X 25 — xvilleog 
Xie 43 =xx. 463 xii. 11, 12=xxi.* 14, I55 xiv. 1f— vine 
xix. 44=xxi. 6; and comp. xvii. 31 with xxi. 21, and xxi. 23 
with xxiii. 29. These instances, which are not exhaustive, suf- 
fice to show that the Evangelist cannot have’ had any very 
strong objection to recording duplicate instances of similar inci- 


§ 4] TIME AND PLACE xxix 


dents and sayings. Could more duplicates be found in any other 
Gospel P 

For recent (since 1885) discussions of the Synoptic problem see Badham, 
The Formation of the Gospels, 1891; Blair, The Apostolic Gospel, 1896 ; Jolley, 
The Synoptic Problem, 1893; Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Books of 
the N.T., 5th ed. 1891 ; Wright, Zhe Composition of the Gospels, 1890; Synopszs 
of the Gospels in Greek, 1896; Holsten, Dze synopt. Evang. nach Form 
thres Inhalts dargestelit, 1886 ; Holtzmann, Einlertung in das N.T. 1892; 
Jiilicher, Zzz/. in das N.T. 1894; Nosgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, being Part 
I. of Gesch. der N.T. Offenbarung, 1891; H. H. Wendt, Die Lehre und das 
Leben Jesu, 1885-1890. Other literature is mentioned on p. Ixxxv. 

See especially Sanday in Book by Book, 1893, p. 345 ff.3 in Dect. of the 
Bible, 2nd ed. 1893, supplement to the article on ‘‘ Gospels,” pp. 1217-1243 ; 
and in the Zxosztor, 4th series, Feb. to June, 1891. 


§ 4. TIME AND PLACE. 


(i.) It is a disappointment that Bishop Lightfoot’s admirable 
article on the Acts (D.&.? i. pp. 25-43) does not discuss the Daze. 
The Bishop told the present writer that he regarded the question 
of date as the province of the writer of the article on S. Luke, an 
article which has not yet been rewritten. The want has, how- 
ever, been to a large extent supplied in the Bampton Lectures for 
1893 (Lect. vi.), and we may safely accept this guidance. 

The main theories respecting the date of the Third Gospel 
contend respectively for a time in or near the years A.D. 100, A.D. 
80, and A.D. 63. 

(a) The strongest argument used by those who advocate a 
date near the close of the first century or early in the second? is 
the hypothesis that the author of the Third Gospel and of the 
Acts had read the Amziguzties of Josephus, a work published about 
A.D. 94. But this hypothesis, if not absolutely untenable, is highly 
improbable. The coincidences between Luke and Josephus are 
not greater than might accidentally occur in persons writing in- 
dependently about the same facts; while the divergences are so 
great as to render copying improbable. At any rate Josephus 
must not be used both ways. If the resemblances are made to 
prove that Luke copied Josephus, then the discrepancies should 
not be employed to prove that Luke’s statements are erroneous. 
If Luke had a correct narrative to guide him, why did he diverge 
from it only to make blunders? It is much more reasonable to 
suppose that where Luke differs from the Axtiguities he had in- 
dependent knowledge, and that he had never read Josephus. 
Moreover, where the statements of either can be tested, it is Luke 
who is commonly found to be accurate, whereas Josephus is often 

1 Among these are Baur, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Jacobsen, Pfleiderer, Over- 


beck, Schwegler, Scholten, Volkmar, Weizsacker, Wittichen, and Zeller. The 
more moderate of these suggest A.D. 95-105, the more extreme A.D. 120-135. 


~- 


xxx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 4. 


convicted of exaggeration and error. See the authorities cited by 
Lft. D.B.2 p. 39; by Holtzmann, Zind. in d. N.T. p. 374, 1892, 
and by Schanz, Comm. iiber d. Evang. d. h. Lukas, p. 16, 1883. 


The relation of Luke to Josephus has recently been rediscussed ; on the one 
side by Clemen (Dze Chronologie der paulin. Briefe, Halle, 1893) and Krenkel 
(Josephus und Lukas ; der schriftstellerische Einfluss des jidischen Geschicht- 
schretbers auf den christlichen, Leipzig, 1894), who regard the use of Josephus 
by Luke as certain; on the other by Belser (Z%eo/. Quartalschrift, Tiibingen, 
1895, 1896), who justly criticizes the arguments of these writers and especially 
of Krenkel.! It is childish to point out that Luke, like Josephus, uses such 
words as dmogréA\Xewv, ddixvetcbar, avédverv, mardlov, méumev, TUN, K.T.As, in 
their usual sense: and such phrases as poéxorrev rn copla kat nAckla (Lk. ii. 52) 
and éloravro wdvtes ol dxovovres avrod éml TH civeoe Kal Tals dmoxploeow avrod 
(ii. 47) are not strikingly similar to els peydAnv madelas mpovKorrov émldoow, 
prin Te Kal ovvéce doxay diadépew (Jos. Vita, 2) and Oavpuacas Thy dmbkpiow 
 abrod cophy otrw yevouevny (Ant. xii. 4. 9). Far more striking resemblances 
may be found in writings which are indisputably independent. Luke alone in 
N.T. calls the Sea of Galilee 7 Aluvn Tevyvnoapér. Could he not call it a /ake 
without being prompted? Josephus also calls it a Aluvy, but his designations 
all differ from Luke’s: Tevynoap 7 Aluvyn, A. Tevvnodp, d. ) Vevvnoapiris, 
Tevynoapins dX. (B. J. ii. 20. 6, iii. 10. 7; Azz. xviii. 2. 1; Veta, 65), and other 
variations. Luke has mpocérecey rots yévacw “Incod (v. 8), and Josephus has 
Tois yovacw avrovd mpoomécovres (Ant. xix. 3. 4). But Josephus more often 
writes mpoomlrreyv tit mpds Ta yévara, and the more frequent phrase would 
more probably have been borrowed. Comp. cuvexouévn muper@ meyddy (Lk. 
iv. 38) with rerapraly muper@ cuoxebels (Ant. xiii. 15. 5); mh merewplfeobe 
(xii. 29) with Azz. xvi. 4. 6, sub fin. (where, however, vevewrépioro is the more 
probable reading) ; dpavros éyévero dm’ atra&y (xxiv. 31) with ddavis éyévero 
(Ant. xx. 8. 6). In these and many other cases the hypothesis of copying is 
wholly uncalled for. The expressions are not very uncommon. Some of them 
perhaps are the result of both Luke and Josephus being familiar with LXX. 
Others are words or constructions which are the common material of various 
Greek writers. Indeed, as Belser has shown, a fair case may be made out to 
show the influence of Thucydides on Luke. In a word, the theory that Luke 
had read Josephus ‘‘ rests on little more than the fact that both writers relate 
or allude to the same events, though the differences between them are really 
more marked than the resemblances” (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 
278). As Schiirer and Salmon put it, if Luke had read Josephus, he must 
very quickly have forgotten all that he read in him. 


In itself, the late date A.D. 100 is not incredible, even for those 
who are convinced that the writer is Luke, and that he never read 
Josephus. Luke may have been quite a young man, well under 
thirty, when he first joined S. Paul, a.D. 50-52; and he may have 
been living and writing at the beginning of the second century. 
But the late date has nothing to recommend it; and we may 
believe that both his writings would have assumed a different 
form, had they been written as late as this. Would not o Xpioros, 
which is still a title and means “the Messiah” (ii. 26, iii. 15, iv. 41, 
ix. 20, XX. 41, xxii. 67, xxili. 35, 39, xxiv. 26, 46), have become a 

1¥F. Bole, Flavius Josephus tiber Chrestus und die Christen in den Jiidischen 


Alterthiimern, Brixen, 1896, defends the disputed passage about Christ (xviii. 
3- 3) rather than the independence of S. Luke. 


§ 4.] TIME AND PLACE xxxi 


proper name, as in the Epistles? Would not 6 Kupuos, as a 
designation of Jesus Christ, have been still more frequent? It is 
not found in Matthew or Mark (excepting in the disputed 
appendix); but it is the invariable designation in the Gosfel of 
ier. in Luke (vil. 13, x. 1, Xi. 39, Xil. 42, xiil. 15, xvii. 5, 6, 
XViii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 61, xxiv. 34) and in John this use is begin- 
ning, but it is still exceptional. Above all, would xxi. 32 have stood 


as it does, at a date when “this generation” had “‘ passed away” ~ 


without seeing the Second Advent? Moreover, the historical 
atmosphere of the Acts is not that of A.D. 95-135. Inthe Acts the 
Jews are the persecutors of the Christians; at this late date the 
Jews were being persecuted themselves. Lastly, what would have 
induced a companion of S. Paul, whether Luke or not, to wait so long 
before publishing the results of his researches? Opportunities of 
contact with those who had been eye-witnesses would have been 
rapidly vanishing during the last twenty years. 

(4) The intermediate date of a.pD. 75-80 has very much 
more to recommend it.) It avoids the difficulties just men- 
tioned. It accounts for the occasional but not yet constant 
use of o Kvpuos to designate Jesus. It accounts for the omis- 
sion of the very significant hint, “let him that readeth under- 
stand” (Mk. xiii. 14; Mt. xxiv. 15). When the first two Gospels 
(or the materials common to both) were compiled, the predicted 
dangers had not yet come but were near; and each of these 

‘Evangelists warns his readers to be on the alert. When the Third 
Gospel was written, these dangers were past. It accounts for the 
greater definiteness of the prophecies respecting the destruction of 
Jerusalem as given by Luke (xix. 43, 44, xxi. 10-24), when com- 
pared with the records of them in Mark (xiii. x4-19) and Matthew 
(xxiv. 15-22). After the destruction had taken place the tradition 
of the prediction might be influenced by what was known to have 
happened; and this without any conscious tampering with the 
report of the prophecy. ‘The possibility of this influence must be 
admitted, and with it a possibility of a date subsequent to A.D. 70 
for the Gospel and the Acts. Twice in the Gospel (viii. 51, ix. 28), 
as in the Acts (i. 13), Luke places John before his elder brother 
James, which Mt. and Mk. never do; and this may indicate that 
Luke wrote after John had become the better known of the two. 
Above all, such a date allows sufficient time for the “many”? to 
“draw up narratives” respecting the acts and sayings of Christ. 


1 Some year between A.D. 70 and 95 is advocated by Beyschlag, Bleek, 
Cook, Credner, De Wette, Ewald, Giider, Holtzmann?, Jiilicher, Keim?, 
K6stlin, Lechler, Lekebusch, Mangold, Ramsay, Renan, Reuss, Sanday, 
Schenkel, Trip, Tobler, Weiss, and others. And the more trustworthy of these, 
e.g. Ramsay, Sanday, and Weiss, are disposed to make A.D. 80 the latest date 
that can reasonably be assigned to the Gospel, or even to the Acts. 


oad THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 4. 


(c) The early date of about a.p. 63 still finds advocates ;1 and 
no doubt there is something to be said for it. Quite the scmplest 
explanation of the fact that S. Paul’s death is not recorded in the Acts 
is that it had not taken place. If that explanation is correct the 
Third Gospel cannot be placed much later than a.D. 63. Again, 
the writer of the Acts can hardly have been familiar with the 
Epistles to the Corinthians and the Galatians: otherwise he would 
have inserted some things and explained others (Salmon, sé. 
Int. to N.T. p. 319, ed. 5). How long might Luke have been 
without seeing these Epistles? Easily till a.p. 63; but less easily 
till A.D. 80. Once more, when Luke records the prophecy of 
Agabus respecting the famine, he mentions that it was fulfilled 
(Acts xi. 28). When he records the prophecy of Christ respecting 
the destruction of Jerusalem (xxi. 5-36), he does not mention that 
it was fulfilled. The simplest explanation is that the destruction 
had not yet taken place. And, if it be said that the prediction of 
it has been retouched in Luke’s record in order to make it more 
distinctly in accordance with facts, we must notice that the words, 
“Let them that are in Judzea /fee to the mountains,” are in all three 
reports. The actual flight seems to have been, not to the moun- 
tains, but to Pella in north Persea; and yet “to the mountains” 
is still retained by Luke (xxi. 21). Eusebius says that there was 
a “revelation” before the war, warning the Christians not only to 
leave the city, but to dwell in a town called Pella (7. Z£. iii. 5. 3). 
This “revelation” is evidently an adaptation of Christ’s prophecy ; 
and here we reasonably suspect that the detail about Pella has been 
added after the event. But there is nothing of it in Luke’s report. 

Nevertheless, the reasons stated above, and especially those 
derived from the prologue to the Gospel, make the intermediate 
date the most probable of the three. It combines the advantages 
of the other two dates and avoids the difficulties of both. It may 
be doubted whether any of the Gospels, as we have them, was 
written as early as A.D. 63; and if the Third Gospel is placed 
after the death of S. Paul, one main reason for placing it before 
A.D. 70 is gone. 

(ii.) As to the Place in which Luke wrote his Gospel we 
have no evidence that is of much value. The Gospel itself gives 
no sure clue. The peculiarities of its diction point to a centre 
in which Hellenistic influences prevailed; and the way in which 
places in Palestine are mentioned have been thought to in- 
dicate that the Gospel was written outside Palestine (i. 26, 
ii. 4, iv. 31, Vili. 26, xxiii. 51, xxiv. 13). The first of these 
considerations does not lead to anything very definite, and the 

1 Among them are Alford, Ebrard, Farrar, Gloag, Godet, Grau, Guerike, 
Hahn, Hitzig, Hofmann, Hug, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Nésgen, Oosterzee, Resch, 
Riehm, Schaff, Schanz (67-70), Thiersch, Tholuck, and Wieseler. 


§ 5.) OBJECT AND PLAN Xxxili 


second has little or no weight. The fact that the Gospel was 
written for readers outside Palestine, who were not familiar with 
the country, accounts for all the topographical expressions. We 
do not know what evidence Jerome had for the statement which 
he makes in the preface to his commentary on S. Matthew: 
Tertius Lucas medicus, nattone Syrus Antiochensts (cujus laus in 
Evangelio), gui et discipulus apostoli Pault, in Achaize Bceotizeque 
partibus volumen condidit (2 Cor. viil.), guxedam altius repetens, 
et ut tpse in prowmio conjitetur, audita magis, quam visa describens 
(Migne, xxvi..18), where some MSS. have Azthynize for Beotiz. 
Some MSS. of the Peshitto give Alexandria as the place of com- 
position, which looks like confusion with Mark. Modern guesses 
vary much: Rome (Holtzmann, Hug, Keim, Lesebusch, Zeller), 
Cesarea (Michaelis, Schott, Thiersch, Tholuck), Asia Minor 
(Hilgenfeld, Overbeck), Ephesus (Kostlin), and Corinth (Godet). 
There is no evidence for or against any of them. 


§ 5. OBJECT AND PLAN. 


(i.) The immediate Odyect is told us in the preface. It was 
written to give Theophilus increased confidence in the faith which 
he had adopted, by supplying him with further information 
respecting its historical basis. That Theophilus is a real person, 
and not a symbolical personage representing devout Christians in 
general,! is scarcely doubtful, although Bishop Lightfoot, with 
characteristic caution, has warned us not to be too confident of 
this. A real person is intrinsically more probable. The name 
was a very common one,—fairly frequent among Jews, and very 
frequent among Gentiles. It is thus quite unlike such obviously 
made up names as Sophron and Neologus in a modern book, 
or Philotheus, to whom Ken dedicates his Manual of Prayer for 
Winchester scholars. Moreover, the epithet xpdrurre is far more 
likely to have been given to a real person than to a fictitious one. 
It does not however necessarily imply high rank or authority (Acts 
Xxlil. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25), and we must be content to be in ignor- 
ance as to who Theophilus was and where he lived. But the tone 
of the Gospel leads us to regard him as a representative Gentile 
convert, who was anxious to know a good deal more than the few ’ 
fundamental facts which were taught to catechumens. The topo- 
graphical statements mentioned above, and such remarks as “the 


1 The idea that Theophilus may symbolize the true disciple is as old as 
Origen (Hom. i. ix Luc.), and is adopted by Ambrose: scriptum est evangelium 
ad Theophilum, hoc est ad eum quem Deus diligit (Comm. in Luc. i. 3). 
Epiphanius regards the name’s denoting was dvOpwaos Ocdv ayarav asa possible 
alternative (Her. ii. 1. 51, Migne, xli. 900). 

< 


XxxiV THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 5. 


feast of unleavened bread which is called the passover” (xxii. 1), 
would not have been required for a Jewish convert. 

But, although Theophilus was almost certainly an actual person 
well known to Luke, we need not suppose that the Evangelist had 
only this one reader in view when he wrote. It is evident that he 
writes for the instruction and encouragement of all Gentile con- 
verts, and possibly Greek-speaking converts in particular. Theo- 
philus is to be the patron of the book with a view to its 
introduction to a larger circle of readers. Perhaps Luke hoped 
that Theophilus would have it copied and disseminated, as he 
probably did. 

Among the many indications that the book is written by a 
Gentile for Gentiles are the substitution of Greek for Hebrew names, 
0 Zndwrys for o Kavavaios (vi. 15; Acts i. 13), and Kpavioy for 
ToAyoa (xxiil. 33); his never using “PaGGel as a form of address, 
but either d:ddcxake or ériordra;1 his comparatively sparing use 
of duyv (seven times as against thirty in Matthew), for which he 
sometimes substitutes a\76as (ix. 27; xii, 44, XXi. 3) or éx dAnOcias 
(iv. 25, xxii. 59); his use of voyixds for ypappareds (Vil. 30, X. 255 
xl. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3); his adding dxdaprov as an epithet to 
darponov (iv. 33), for Gentiles believed in good daiuéma, whereas 
to a Jew all dapdva were evil; his avoiding perenopdaby (Mk. 
ix. 2; Mt. xvii. 2) in his account of the Transfiguration (ix. 29), a 
word which might have suggested the metamorphoses of heathen 
deities ; his notice of the Roman Emperor (ii. 1), and using his 
reign as a date (iii. 1); his tracing the Saviour’s descent to Adam, 
the parent of Gentile as well as Jew (iii. 38). Although full 
honour is shown to the Mosaic Law as binding on Jews (ii. 21, 
27) 39, V- 14, X. 26, xvi. 17, 29-31, XVii. 14, xvill. 20), yet there is 
not much appeal to it as of interest to his readers. Luke has no 
parallels to Mt. v. 17, 19, 20, 21, 27, 31, 33, Xli. 5-7, 17-20, 
xv. I-20. The quotations from the Old Testament are few as 
compared with Matthew, and they are found mostly in the sayings 
of Christ (iv. 4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 26, Vi. 4, Vil. 27, Vill. 10, xii. 19, 
28, 29, 35; XVili. 20, xix. 46, XX, 17, 37, 42, 43) XXl. 10; 24;emee 
35, Xxii. 33 69, xxiii. 32 46) or of others (i. 15, 17, 37, 46-55, 
68-79, ii. 30, 31, 32, iv. 10, I1, X. 27, Xx. 28). Very little is said 
about the fulfilment of prophecy, which would not greatly interest 
Gentile readers (iii. 4, iv. 21, xxi. 22, xxii. 375 Xxiv. 44); and of 
these five instances, all but ‘the first occur in sayings of Christ 
addressed to Jews. Many of the quotations noted above are mere 


1 The following Hebrew or Aramaic words, which occur in the other Gospels, 
are not found in Luke: ’ABBG (Mk.), Boovepyés (Mk.), TaSBaea (Jn.), 
*EBpatorl (Jn.), "Eupavoujh (Mt.), é¢pad (Mk.), KopSav (Mk.), KopBavds 
(Mt.), Megolas (Jn.), wcavvd (Mt. Mk. Jn.), together with the sayings, raAeda 
xooys (Mk.) and Awi, edwt, «.7.d. ie Mk.). 


§ 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XxXxv 


reproductions, more or less conscious, of the words of Scripture ; 
but the following are definitely given as citations: il. 23, 24, ili. 4, 
Waa, o, 10, 11, 12, 1, FO, Vil. 27, X. 27,) XVill. 20, XIx. 46, XX. 17, 
28, 37, 42, 43, Xxli. 37. Excepting vii. 27, they may all have come 
from LXX.! And vil. 27 does not agree with either the Hebrew 
or LXX of Mal. iii. 1, and is no evidence that the Evangelist 
knew Hebrew. On the other hand it agrees verbatim with Mt. 
xi. 10, and we need not doubt that both Evangelists used the same 
source and copied it exactly. Add to these his command of the 
Greek language and his use of “ Judzea” for the land of the Jews, 
z.e. the whole of Palestine (i. 5, iv. 44?, vii. 17, xxili. 5; Acts ii. 9, 
X. 37, xi. 1,29). This combination of non-Jewish features would 
be extraordinary in a treatise written by a Jew or for Jews. It is 
thoroughly intelligible in one written by a Gentile for Gentiles. 

In his desire to give further instruction to Theophilus and 
many others like him, it is evident that Luke aims at fudness. He 
desires to make his Gospel as comp/eze as possible. This is clearly 
indicated in the prologue. He has “traced up the course of a// 
things accurately from the first” (dvwHev maowv), in order that 
Theophilus may “know iz full detail” (ériyvds) the historic 
foundations of the faith. And it is equally clearly seen in the 
Gospel itself. Luke begins at the very beginning, far earlier than 
any other Evangelist ; not merely with the birth of the Christ, but 
with the promise of the birth of the Forerunner. And he goes on 
to the very end: not merely to the Resurrection but to the Ascen- 
sion. Moreover his Gospel contains an immense proportion of 
material which is peculiar to himself. According to one calcula- 
tion, if the contents of the Synoptic Gospels are divided into 172 
sections, of these 172 Luke has 127 (?), Matthew 114 (%), and 
Mark 84 (4); and of these 172 Luke has 48 which are peculiar to 
himself (7), Matthew has 22 (3), and Mark has 5 (34). According 
to another calculation, if the total be divided into 124 sections, of 
these Lk. has 93, Matthew 78, and Mark 67; and of these 124 
Luke has 38 peculiar to himself, Matthew 17, and Mark 2.2 The 
portions of the Gospel narrative which Luke alone has preserved 
for us are among the most beautiful treasures which we possess, 
and we owe them in a great measure to his desire to make his 
collection as full as possible. 


1Jerome (Comm. in Is. vi. 9, Migne, xxiv. 100) says, Evangelistam Lucam 
tradunt veteres Eccclesizw tractatores medicine artis fuisse sczentissimum, et 
magis Grecas litteras scisse quam Hebrxas. Unde et sermo ejus, tam in Evan- 
gelo quam in Actibus Apostolorum, td est in utrogue volumine .omptior est, et 
secularem redolet eloguentiam, magzsque testimontzs Grects utitur quam Hebreis. 

2 Six miracles are peculiar to Luke, three to Matthew, and two to Mark. 
Eighteen parables are peculiar to Luke, ten to Matthew, and one to Mark. 
See p. xli. For other interesting statistics respecting the relations between the 
Synoptists see Westcott, utr. to Gospels, pp. 194 ff. 


XXXVi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 5. 


It is becoming more and more generally admitted that the old 
view of the purpose of Gospel and Acts is not far off the truth. It 
was Luke’s intention to write history, and not polemical or apolo- 
getic treatises. It was his aim to show all Christians, and especi- 
ally Gentile Christians, on how firm a basis of fact their belief was 
founded. ‘The Saviour had come, and He had come to save the 
whole human race. The work of the Christ and the work of His 
Apostles proved this conclusively. In the Gospel we see the 
Christ winning salvation for the whole world ; in the Acts we see 
His Apostles carrying the good tidings of this salvation to the 
whole world. Luke did not write to depreciate the Twelve in the 
interests of S. Paul; nor to vindicate S. Paul against the attacks of 
Judaizing opponents; nor yet to reconcile the Judaizers with the 
disciples of S. Paul. A Gospel which omits the severe rebuke 
incurred by Peter (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 33), the ambitious 
request of James and John (Mt. xx. 21; Mk. x. 37), the boastful 
declaration of loyalty made by all the Twelve (Mt. xxvi. 35; Mk. 
xiv. 31), and the subsequent flight. of all (Mt. xxvi. 56; Mk. 
xiv. 50); which promises to the Twelve their judgment-thrones 
(xxii. 30), and trusts them with the conversion of “all the nations” 
(xxiv. 47), cannot be regarded as hostile to the Twelve. And why 
address a vindication of Paul to a representative Gentile? Lastly, 
how could Judaizers be conciliated by such stern judgments on 
Judaism as Luke has recorded? See, for instance, the following 
passages, all of them from what is peculiar to Luke: iv. 28, 29, 
X. 10, II, 31, 32,.XL 30, 40, xii. 47, Xill. I-5, 15, XVI UG vee, 
XVlil. 10-14, xxili. 28-31 ; Acts ii. 23, v. 30, vii. 51-53, etc. It is 
well that these theories as to the purpose of the Evangelist have 
been propounded: the examination of them is most instructive. 
But they do not stand the test of careful investigation. S. Luke 
remains unconvicted of the charge of writing party pamphlets 
under the cover of fictitious history. 

(ii.) The Plan of the Gospel is probably not elaborated. In 
the preface Luke says that he means to write “in order” (xafe&js), 
and this most naturally means in chronological order. Omitting 
the first two chapters and the last chapter in each case, the 
main features of the First and Third Gospels agree ; and in outline 
their structure agrees te a large extent with that of the Second.? 
Luke perhaps took the tradition which underlies all three Gospels 
as his chief guide, and inserted into it what he had gathered from 
other sources. In arranging the additional material he followed 
chronology, where be had any chronological clue; and where he 


1 As regards order, im the first half the Second and Third Gospels commonly 
azres, whie *be First varies. In the second half the First and Second com- 
paonly agree, while the Third varies. Matthew’s additions to the common 
vsaterial are mostly in the first half; Luke’s are mostly in the second. 


§ 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XXXVii 


had none (which perhaps was often the case), he placed similar 
incidents or sayings in juxtaposition. 


But a satisfactory solution of the perplexing phenomena has not yet been 
found: for what explains one portion of them with enticing clearness cannot be 
made to harmonize with another portion. We may assert with some confidence 
that Luke generally aims at chronological order, and that on the whole he 
attains it; but that he sometimes prefers a different order, and that he often, 
being ignorant himself, leaves us also in ignorance as to chronology. Perhaps 
also some of his chronological arrangements are not correct. 

The chronological sequence of the Acts cannot be doubted; and this is 
strong confirmation of the view that the Gospel is meant to be chronological in 
arrangement. Comp. the use of xa@eéfs viii. 1; Acts iii. 24, xi. 4, xviil. 23. 

That the whole Gospel is elaborately arranged to illustrate the development 
and connexion of certain theological ideas does not harmonize with the im- 
pression which it everywhere gives of transparent simplicity. That there was 
connexion and development in the life and work of Christ need not be doubted ; 
and the narrative which reports that life and work in its true order will illustrate 
the connexion and development. But that is a very different thing from the 
supposition that Luke first formed a scheme, and then arranged his materials to 
illustrate it. So far as there is “‘ organic structure and dogmatic connexion” in 
the Third Gospel, it is due to the materials rather than to the Evangelist. 
Attempts to trace this supposed dogmatic connexion are instructive in two 
ways. They suggest a certain number of connexions, which (whether intended 
or not) are illuminative. They also show, by their extraordinary divergences, 
how far we are from anything conclusive in this direction. The student who 
compares the schemes worked out by Ebrard (Gosf. Hzst. I. i. 1, § 20, 21), 
McClellan (WV. 7. pp. 427 ff.), Oosterzee (Lange's Comm. Int. § 4), and West- 
cott (Zt. to Gospels, ch. vii. note G) will gather various suggestive ideas, but 
will also doubt whether anything like any one of them was in the mind of the 
Evangelist. 


The analysis which follows is obtained by separating the 
different sections and grouping them under different heads. There 
is seldom any doubt as to where one section ends and another 
begins ; and the grouping of the sections is avowedly tentative. 
But most analyses recognize a break between chapters ii. and iii., 
at or about ix. 51 and xix. 28, and between chapters xxi. and xxii. 
If we add the preface, we have six divisions to which the numer- 
ous sections may be assigned. In the two main central divisions, 
which together occupy nearly seventeen chapters, some subsidiary 
grouping has been attempted, but without confidence in its cor- 
rectness. It may, however, be conducive to clearness, even if 
nothing of the kind is intended by S. Luke.!_ The mark § indicates 
that this portion is found in Luke alone; ° that it is common to 
Luke and Mark ; { that it is common to Luke and Matthew; * that 
it is common to all three. 


1 The divisions and subdivisions of the Gospel in the text of WH. are most 
instructive. Note whether paragraphs and sentences have spaces between them 
or not, and whether sentences begin with a capital letter or not. The analysis 
of the poste! by Sanday in Book by Book, pp. 402-404 (Isbister, 1893), will be 
found very helpful. 


XXXVIIi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE I$ 5 


There is a presumption that what is peculiar to Luke comes from some 
source that was not used by Mark or Matthew ; and this presumption is in some 
cases a strong one; ¢.g. the Examination of Christ before Herod, or the Walk 
to Emmaus ; but all that we know is that Luke has preserved something which 
they have not. Again there is a presumption that what is given by Luke and 
Matthew, but omitted by Mark, comes from some source not employed by the 
latter ; and this presumption is somewhat stronger when what is given by them, 
but omitted by him, is not narrative but discourse; e.g. the Parable of the 
Lost Sheep. Yet the book of ‘‘ Oracles,” known to Matthew and Luke, but 
not known to Mark, is nothing more than a convenient hypothesis for which a 
good deal may be said. And it would be rash to affirm that the few (p. xxiv) 
sections which are found in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew, such as the 
Widow’s Mite, come from some source unknown to Matthew. The frequency 
of the ..ark § gives some idea of what we should have lost had S. Luke not 
been moved to write. And it must be remembered that in the sections which 
are common to him and either or both of the others he often gives touches of 
his own which are of the greatest value. Attention is frequently called to these 
in the notes. They should be contrasted with the additions made to the 
Canonical Gospels in the apocryphal gospels. 


I. i. 1-4. §THE Prerack. THE SourcES AND OBJECT OF 
THE GOSPEL. 


II. i. 5-ii. 52. § THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY. 
1. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner (5-25). 
2. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38). 
3. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of 
the Forerunner (39-56). 
4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80). 
5. The Birth of the Saviour (ii. 1-20). 
6. The Circumcision and Presentation of the Saviour 
21-40). 
7. The Bopnead of the Saviour (41-52). 


III. iii. r-ix. 50. THE MINISTRY, MAINLY IN GALILEE. 
i. Zhe External Preparation for the Ministry ; The Preach- 
ing of the Bapiist (iii. 1-22). 
1. § The Date (1, 2). 
2. * The New Prophet, his Preaching, Prophecy, and 
Death (3-20). 
3. * He baptizes the Christ (21, 22). 
§ The Genealogy of the Christ (23-38). 
ii. Zhe Internal Preparation for the Ministry ; * The Tempta 
tion (iv. 1-13). 
iii. Zhe Ministry in Galilee (iv. 14-1x. 50). 
1. Visit to Nazareth; °At Capernaum an unclean Demon 
cast out (iv. 14-44). 
2. §*The Miraculous Draught and the Call of Simon; 
* Two Healings which provoke Controversy ; * The 
Call of Levi; *Two Sabbath Incidents which 
provoke Controversy (v. I-vi. 11). 


§ 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XXxxix 


3. *The Nomination of the Twelve; t The Sermon “on 
the Level Place”; +The Centurion’s Servant ; 
§The Widow’s Son at Nain; , The Message from 
the Baptist; §The Anointing by the Sinner; §The 
Ministering Women; * The Parable of the Sower ; 
* The Relations of Jesus ; * The Stilling of the Tem- 
pest ; * The Gerasene Demoniac ; * The Woman with 
the Issue and the Daughter of Jairus (vi. 12—-viil. 56). 

4 *The Mission of the Twelve; * The Feeding of the 
Five Thousand; * Peter’s Confession and the First 
Prediction of the Passion; * The Transfiguration ; 
*The Demoniac Boy; * The Second Prediction of 
the Passion; * Who is the greatest? * Not against 
us is for us (ix. 1-50). 


IV. ix. 51-xix. 28. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM: 
MINISTRY OUTSIDE GALILEE. 


i. Zhe departure from Galilee and First Period of the 
Journey (ix. 51-xiii. 35). 

1. §The Samaritan Village; ¢§Three Aspirants to Dis- 
cipleship; § The Seventy: The Lawyer’s Questions 
and §the Good Samaritan; § Mary and Martha 
(ix. 51-x. 42). 

s. §Prayer ; * Casting out Demons by Beelzebub ; § True 
Blessedness ; * The Demand for a Sign: § Denuncia- 
tion of Pharisaism; 7+ Exhortation to Sincerity ; 
§ The Avaricious Brother; §The Rich Fool; God’s 
Providential Care ; § The Signs of the Times (xi. 1- 


xii. 59). 
3- §Three Exhortations to Repentance; §The Woman 
with a Spirit of Infirmity; *The Mustard Seed; 
t The Leaven; The Number of the Saved; §The 
Message to Antipas and {7 the Lament over Jeru- 
salem (xiii. 1-35). 
il, Zhe Second Period of the Journey (xiv. 1-xvii. 10). 
1. §The Dropsical Man; §Guests and Hosts; § The 
Great Supper; §The Conditions of Discipleship ; 
t The Lost Sheep; §The Lost Coin; §The Lost 
Son (xiv. I-xv. 32). 
#. §The Unrighteous Steward; §¢ Short Sayings; § The 
Rich Man and Lazarus ; Four Sayings on * Offences, 
§ Forgiveness, ¢ Faith, § Works (xvi. 1-xvii. 10). 
ili. Zhe Third Period of the Journey (xvii. 11-xix. 28). 
1. §The Ten Lepers; §* The coming of the Kingdom; 
§The Unrighteous Judge; §The Pharisee and the 
Publican (xvii. 11—xviii. 14). 


xl THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 5. 


2. * Little Children; *The Rich Young’ Ruler; *The 
Third Prediction of the Passion; *The Blind Man 
at Jericho; § Zacchzus; §The Pounds (xviii. 15- 
xix. 28). 


V. xix. 29-xxi. 38. Last Days or Pusiic TEACHING: 
MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM. 


1. *The Triumphal Procession and § Predictive Lament- 
ation; * The Cleansing of the Temple (xix. 29-48). 

a. The Day of Questions. * Christ’s Authority and John’s 
Baptism ; * The Wicked Husbandmen; * Tribute ; 
* The Woman with Seven Husbands; * David’s Son 
and Lord; *The Scribes; °The Widow’s Mite; 
*§ Apocalyptic Discourse (xx. 1-xxi. 38). 


VI. xai.—xxiv. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION. 
i. Zhe Passion (xxii. 1-xxiii. 56). 

1. * The Treachery of Judas (xxii. 1-6). 

2, * The Paschal Supper and Institution of the Eucharist ; 
* The Strife about Priority ; § The New Conditions 
(xxii. 7-38). 

3. *§The Agony; * The Arrest; * Peter’s Denials ; The 
Ecclesiastical Trial; *The Civil Trial; § Jesus 
sent to Herod; * Sentence; *Simon of Cyrene; 
§The Daughters of Jerusalem ; * The Crucifixion ; 
§The Two Robbers; *The Death (xxii. 39- 
xxili. 49). 

4. * The Burial (xxiii. 50-56). 

ii. Zhe Resurrection and the Ascension (xxiv.). 

1. *§The Women at the Tomb (1-11). 

2. §[Peter at the Tomb (12).] 

3. § The Walk to Emmaus (13-32). 

4. § The Appearance to the Eleven (33-43). 

5. § Christ’s Farewell Instructions (44-49). 

6. § The Departure (50-53). 


Note that each of the three divisions of the Ministry begins 
with scenes which are typical of Christ’s rejection by His people: 
the Ministry in Galilee with the attempt on His life at Nazareth 
(iv. 28-30); the Ministry outside Galilee with the refusal of 
Samaritans to entertain Him (ix. 51-56); and that in Jerusalem 
with the Lament over the city (xix. 41-44). In the first and last 
case the tragic rejection is heightened by being preceded by a 
momentary welcome. 


It will be useful to collect for separate consideration the Miracles and the 
Parables which are recorded by S. Luke. 


§6.] | CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE 


MIRACLES, 


* Unclean Demon cast out. 
* Peter’s Wife’s Mother healed. 
§ Miraculous Draught of Fish. 


* Leper cleansed, 
* Palsyed healed. 


* Withered Hand restored. 
+ Centurion’s Servant healed. 


§ Widow’s Son raised, 

* Tempest stilled. 

* Gerasene Demoniac. 

* Woman with the Issues 
* Jairus’ Daughter raised. 
* Five Thousand fed. 

* Demoniac Boy. 

+ Dumb Demon cast oute 
§ Spirit of Infirmity. 

§ Dropsical Man. 

§ Ten Lepers cleansed, 

* Blind Man at Jerichoe 


PARABLES, 


§ Two Debtors. 

* Sower. 

§ Good Samaritan, 

§ Friend at midnight, 

§ Rich Fool. 

§ Watchful Servants, 

§ Barren Fig-tree. 

* Mustard Seed. 

+ Leaven. 

§ Chief Seats, 

§ Great Saupets 

§ Rash Builder. 

§ Rash King. 

+ Lost Sheep, 

§ Lost Coin. 

§ Lost Son. 

§ Unrighteous Stewarde 
§ Dives and Lazarus. 

§ Unprofitable Servants. 


§ Malchus’ ear. § Unrighteous Judge. 
§ Pharisee and Publicane 
§ Pounds. 


* Wicked Husbandmen. 


Thus, out of twenty miracles recorded by Luke, six are peculiar to him; 
while, out of twenty-three parables, all but five are peculiar to him. And he 
omits only eleven, ten peculiar to Matthew, and one peculiar to Mark (iv. 26-29). 
Whence did Luke obtain the eighteen parables which he alone records? And 
whence did Matthew obtain the ten parables which he alone records? If the 
“Oracles” contained them all, why does each Evangelist omit so many? If 
S. Luke knew our Matthew, why does he omit all these ten, especially the 
Two Sons (Mt. xxi. 28-32), which points to the obedience of the Gentiles (see 
p. xxiv). In illustration of the fact that the material common to all three 
Gospels consists mainly of narratives rather than discourses, it should be noticed 
that most of the twenty miracles in Luke are in the other two also, whereas 
only three of the twenty-three parables in Luke are also in Matthew and Mark. 
It is specially worthy of note that the eleven miracles recorded by all three 
occur in the same order in each of the Gospels; and the same is true of the 
three parables which are common to all three. Moreover, if we add to these the 
three miraculous occurrences which attest the Divinity of Christ, these also are 
in the same order in each. The Descent of the Spirit with the Voice from 
Heaven at the Baptism precedes all. The Transfiguration is placed between 
the feeding of the 5000 and the healing of the demoniac boy. The Resurrection 
closes all. Evidently the order had already been fixed in the material which all 
three Evangelists employ. 


§6. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE, 


(i.) It has already been pointed out (p. xxxv) that Luke aims at 
fulness and completeness. “(a) Comprehensiveness is a charac- 
teristic of his Gospel. His Gospel is the nearest approach to a 
biography ; and his object seems to have been to give his readers 


xlii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 


as full a picture as he could of the life of Jesus Christ, in all the 
portions of it—infancy, boyhood, manhood—respecting which he 
had information. 

But there is a comprehensiveness of a more important kind 
which is equally characteristic of him: and for the sake of a 
different epithet we may say that the Gospel of S.(Luke is in a 
special sense the wmiversal Gospel.» All four Evangelists | tell us 
that the good tidings are sent to “all the nations” (Mt. xxviii. 19 ; 
Mk. xiii. 10; Lk. xxiv. 47) independently of birth (Jn. i. 12, 13). 
But no one teaches this so fully and persistently as S. Luke. (He 
gives us, not so much the Messiah of the O.T., as the Saviour of 
all mankind and the Satisfier of all human needs. Again and 
again he shows us that forgiveness and salvation are offered to all, 
and offered freely, independently of privileges of birth or legal 
observances. Righteousness of heart is the passport to the King- 
dom of God, and this is open to everyone; to the Samaritan 
(ix. 51-56, x. 30-37, xvil. 11-19) and the Gentile (ii. 32, iii, 6, 38, 
iv. 25-27, Vil. 9, X. I, xii. 20, XXi. 2A, XXIV; 47) as weil as to the 
Jew (i. 33, 54, 68-79, il. To); to publicans, sinners, and outcasts 
(iii, 12, 13, V. 27-32, Vil. 37-50, XV. I, 2, 11-32, XVill. 9-14, xix. 
2-10, xxiil. 43) as well as to the respectable (vil. 36, xi. 37, xiv. 1) 5 
to the poor (i. 53, ii. 7, 8, 24, iv. 18, vi. 20, 21, Vil. 22, Xiv. 13, 21, 
XVi. 20, 23) as well as to the rich (xix. 2, xxill. 50). And hence 
Dante calls S. Luke “the writer of the story of the gentleness of 
Christ,” scriba mansuetudinis Christi (De Monarchia, i. 16 [18], 
ed. Witte, 1874, p. 33; Church, p. 210). It cannot be mere 
accident that the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal 
Son, the Great Supper, the Pharisee and the Publican, the rebukes 
to intolerance, and the incidents of the sinner in the house of 
Simon, and of the penitent robber are peculiar to this Gospel. Nor 
yet that it omits Mt. vii. 6, x. 5, 6, xx. 16, xxii. 14, which might be 
regarded as hostile to the Gentiles. S. Luke at the opening of the 
ministry shows this universal character of it by continuing the 
great prophecy from Is. xl. 3 ff. (which all four Evangelists quote) 
till he reaches the words “‘ All flesh shall see the salvation of God” 
(iii. 6). And at the close of it he alone records the gracious 
declaration that ‘the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that 
which was lost” (xix. 10; interpolated Mt. xviii. 11). 

It is a detail, but an important one, in the universality of the 
Third Gospel, that it is in an especial sense the Gospel for women. 
Jew and Gentile alike looked down on women.? But all through 
this Gospel they are allowed a prominent place, and many types 


1Comp. also the close of the Acts, esp. xxviii. 28; and the was (Lk. 
xvi, 16), hich i is not in Mt. (xi. 12). 

3 In the Jewish liturgy the men thank God that they have not been made 
Women. 


§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE _ xiii 


of womanhood are placed before us: Elizabeth, the Virgin Mary, 
the prophetess Anna, the widow at Nain, the nameless sinner in 
the house of Simon, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, the woman 
with the issue, Martha and Mary, the widow with the two mites, 
the “daughters of Jerusalem,” and the women at the tomb. A 
Gospel with this marked antipathy to exclusiveness and intolerance 
appropriately carries the pedigree of the Saviour past David and 
Abraham to the parent of the whole human race (iii. 38). It is 
possible that Luke simply copied the genealogy as he found it, or 
that his extending it to Adam is part of his love of completeness ; 
but the thought of the father of all mankind is likely to have been 
present also. 

It is this all-embracing love and forgiveness, as proclaimed in 
the Third Gospel, which is meant, or ought to be meant, when it 
is spoken of as the “ Gospel of S. Paul.” The tone of the Gospel 
is Pauline. It exhibits the liberal and spiritual nature of Chris- 
tianity. It advocates faith and repentance apart from the works 
of the Law, and tells abundantly of God’s grace and mercy and the 
work of the Holy Spirit. In the Pauline Epistles these topics and 
expressions are constant. 


The word wlorts, which occurs eight times in Mt., five in Mk., and not 
at all in Jn., is found eleven times in Lk. and sixteen in the Acts: werdvo.a, 
twice in Mt., once in Mk., not in Jn., occurs five times in Lk. and six in Acts: 
xdpes, thrice in Jn., not Mt. or Mk., is frequent both in Lk. and Acts: &Aeos, 
thrice in Mt., not in Mk. or Jn., occurs six times in Lk. but not in Acts: &geocs 
a&papttwy, once in Mt., twice in Mk., not in Jn., is found thrice in Lk. and 
five times in Acts; and the expression ‘‘ Holy Spirit,” which is found five times 
in Mt., four in Mk., four in Jn., occurs twelve times in Lk. and forty-one in 
Acts. See oni. 15. 

It is characteristic that rlva picbdv exere (Mt. v. 46) becomes ola syiv 
xdpes dor (Lk. vi. 32) ; and &cec0e duets TéXerot, ws 6 marhp buayr 6 otpdvios 
réXerds éorw (Mt. v. 48) becomes yivece olkrlippoves, kadws 6 marhp vuov 
olkripuwy éorw (Lk. vi. 36). Note also the incidents recorded iv. 25-27 and 
x. I-16, and the office of the Holy Spirit as indicated i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 
26, 27, iv. I, X. 21, xi. 13, all of which are peculiar to Lk. 


But it is misleading in this respect to compare the Second 
Gospel with the Third. From very early times the one has been 
called the Petrine Gospel, and the other the Pauline. S. Mark is 
said to give us the teaching of S. Peter, S. Luke the teaching of 
S. Paul. The statements are true, but in very different senses. 
Mark derived his materials from Peter. Luke exhibits the spirit 
of Paul: and no doubt to a large extent he derived this spirit from 
the Apostle. But he got his material from eye-witnesses. Mark 
was the im¢erpreter of Peter, as Irenzeus (iii. 1. 1, 10. 6) and Tertullian 
(Adv. Marcion. iv. 5) aptly called him: he made known to others 
what Peter had said. Paul was the 2/wminator of Luke (Tert. iv. 2): 
he enlightened him as to the essential character of the Gospel. 


xliv [§ 6. 
Luke, as his “‘ fellow-worker,” would teach what the Apostle taught, 
and would learn to give prominence to those elements in the 
Gospel narrative of which he made most frequent use. Then at 
last “‘ Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel 
preached by him” (Iren. iii. 1. 1). . 


Jiilicher sums up the case justly when he says that Luke has adopted from 
Paul no more than the whole Catholic Church has adopted, viz. the universality of 
salvation and the boundlessness of Divine grace: and it is precisely in these two 
points that Paul has been a clear-sighted and logical interpreter of Jesus Christ 
(Zznl. § 27, p. 204). See also Knowling, 7he Witness of the Epistles, p. 328, 
and the authorities there quoted. 

Holtzmann, followed by Davidson (Jztrod. to N.T. ii. p. 17) and Schaff 
(Apostolic Christianity, ii. p. 667), gives various instances of parallelism be- 
tween the Third Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. Resch (Aussercanonische 
Paralleliexte, p. 121, Leipzig, 1893), while ignoring some of Holtzmann’s ex- 
amples, adds others; but some of his are not very convincing, or depend upon 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 


doubtful readings. The following are worth considering :— 


S. LUKE, 
iv. 32. év cEovola jv 6 Adyos abrod. 


vi. 36. 6 marhp Suav olktlppwy early. 

vi. 39. pyre Stvarat TUPdds Tudrdv 
Odnyetv 5 

vi. 48, 2Onkev Oenéduov. 

vil. 8. dvOpwrbs elus bwd eEovclay 
Tagobmevos. 

Vill, 12, miotevoavTes TwOGouv, 


Vili. 13. wera xapas Séxovrar rT. Ab-yov. 


x. 7. déwos yap 6 épydrns Tob pucbod 
avrov. 
x. 8. éoOlere TA mapariOéueva dpiv. 


x. 16. 6 dBerGv buds eue aOeret’ 6 
6é éué aberGy aberet roy drocrethayTd 


x. 20, 7a dvduara duav évyéypatr 
év Tots otlpavois. . 
xi. 7. “7 pot Kbarous mapexe. 


xi. 29. 7) yeved attrn .. . onpetov 
Snret. 

xi. 41. kal ldo) mdvra xabapa dpiv 
éorly. 

xii, 35. fotwoar tudv al dadies 
TeplefwoUevot. 

cate, CE CAG 
oikovdpos ; 

xiii. 27. daréaorynre dm’ éuod martes 
épydrat dbixlas (Ps. vi. 8). 

xviii. I. dety mdvrore mpocetxerOar 
aurovs 


dpa éorly 6 mords 


S. PAUL 


1 Cor. ii. 4. 6 Adyos wou we. & 
drodclEe: rvevparos Kal Suvdpews. 

2 Cor. i. 3. 6 tarp Tay olkrippar. 

Rom. ii. 19. mwémovOas ceavrdv ddr7yar 
elvac TUPAG. 

I Cor. iii. 10. Oeuédcov 20nKa. 

Rom. xiii. 1. é£ovclats barepexovous 
broraccésOw. 

1 Cor. i. 21. coat rods meorevovTas. 

Rom. i. 16. els cwryplay wavtl rt. 
WioTevovTt. 

1 Thes. i. 6. deEduevor 7. Adyov « 2 « 
peta Xapas. 

1 Tim. v. 18. déos 6 épydrns rod 
pAcO00 airod. 

I Cor, x. 27. wav 76 mapatiOépevov 
byuiv écBiere. 

I Thes. iv. 8. 6 d0erGv ovk dvOpw- 
mov dOeret d\Nd Tov Oedy, 


Phil. iv. 3. dy rd dvépara év BIBAw 
fw7js (Ps. Ixix. 28). 

Gal. vi. 17. xéaous pot pndels mrape- 
xEeT OH. 

1 Cor.i. 22. "Iovdator onpeta alrodow. 


Tit. i, 15. mdvra xaOapa tots xaa- 
pois. 

Eph. vi. 14. orfre obv mepifwodpevor 
tiv dopdy duav (Is. xi. 5). 

I Cor. iv. 2. fnreirat év rots olxovd- 
pots iva miords Tes ebpeO7. 

2 Tim. ii. 19. dmroorntw dard ddcxlas 
mas 0 dvondgwr 7d dvoua Kuplov. 

Col. i. 3. mdvrore mpoceux duevot. 

2 Thes, i, 11. mpocevydueba rdvrore. 


§ 6.] 


kal ph éveaxetv. 

xx. 16. sy yévolro. 

XX. 22, 25. tkeorw nuas Kaloape 
Popov dovvat 7) ov; admddore ra Kaloa- 
pos Katoapt. 

XX. 35. ol d¢ katragiwOévres Tov alavos 
éxelvou Tuxelv. 

xx. 38. mdvres yap alT@ fGouw. 


xxi, 23. €orat yap .. . Opyh Te 
ag TovTw. 

xxi, 24. Axpt 03 mAnpwHGow Katpol 
eOvav. 

Xxi. 34. fj Tore BapynOGouv al kapdtac 
Uuav év Kpewddyn kal péOn ... Kal 
ériaTy ep duds epvidios  Huépa éxelvn 
ws mays. 

Xx1. 36. dypumvetre O€ év mavrl Kapp 
Sedpevor. 


CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE 


xlv 


_ Gal. vi. 9. wh evkaxdpuer. 
Rom. ix. 14, xi. 11; Gal. iii. 21. 
Rom. xiii. 7. dwédote maow Tas 
dpéirds, TH Tov pdpov Tov Pbpov. 


2 Thes. i. 5. els TO xaratwwOjvas 
bpas THs BaotNelas Tod Oeod. 

Rom. vi. 11. (Gvras TG Oew. 

Gal. ii. 19. va Oe@ (jou. 

1 Thes. ii. 16. &pOacev dé éx’ abrovds 
% Spyn els Tédos. 

Rom. xi. 25. &xpt 03 7d mAjpwpya 
Tov €Ovav eloéNOn. 

I Thes. v. 3-5. tTére aldpvldios avrois 
émlorarat 8AcOpos . . . duets 5& ovx 
éoré év oxbrer, va  tuepa buds ws 
Kdémrns [kAérras] KaraddBy. 

Eph. vi. 18. mpooevyduevor év mayrt 
KaLp@ . . » Kal dypumvodrtes. 


xxii. 53. 7% efovcla Tod oxbrous. Col.i.13. é« TAs eEovclas Tod oxbrous. 


It is not creditable to modern scholarship that the foolish opinion, quoted 
by Eusebius with a gaol dé (Z. Z. iii. 4. 8) and by Jerome with guzdam sus- 
pucantur (De vir. zllus. vii.), that wherever S. Paul speaks of ‘‘my Gospel” 
(Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8) he means the Gospel of S. Luke, still 
finds advocates. And the supposition that the Third Gospel is actually quoted 
1 Tim. v. 18 is incredible. The words \évye 7 ypad7 refer to the first sentence 
only, which comes from Deut. xxv. 4. What follows, ‘‘ the labourer is worthy 
of his hire,” is a popular saying, adopted first by Christ (Lk. x. 7; Mt. x. 10) 
and then by S. Paul. Had S. Paul quoted the saying as an utterance of Christ, 
he would not have said \éyer ) ypad7. He would have used some such expres- 
sion as pynwovevew Tv Nbywv Tod Kuplov Inood Srt adrds Neyer (Acts xx. 35), Or 
maparyyéAret 6 KUptos (I Cor. vii. 10, 12), or meuvnuevor Tav Abywy Tod Kuplov 
"Inaod, ods eAddnoev (Clem. Rom. Cov, xiii. 1; comp. xlvi. 7), or simply elev 
6 kUpios (Polyc. vii. 2). Comp. 1 Thes. iv. 15; 1 Cor. ix. 14, xi. 23. 


(4) More than any of the other Evangelists S. Luke brings 
before his readers the subject of Prayer; and that in two ways, 
(1) by the example of Christ, and (2) by direct instruction. All 
three Synoptists record that Christ prayed in Gethsemane (Mt. 
xxvil. 39; Mk. xiv. 35; Lk. xxil. 41); Mark (i. 35) mentions His 
retirement for prayer after healing multitudes at Capernaum, where 
Luke (iv. 42) merely mentions the retirement: and Matthew 
(xiv. 23) and Mark (vi. 46) relate His retirement for prayer after 
the feeding of the 5000, where Luke (ix. 17) relates neither. But 
on seven occasions Luke is alone in recording that Jesus prayed: 
at His Baptism (iii. 21) ; before His first collision with the hierarchy 
(v. 16); before choosing the Twelve (vi. 12); before the first 
prediction of the Passion (ix. 18); at the Transfiguration (ix. 29) ; 
before teaching the Lord’s Prayer (xi. 1) ; and on the Cross (xxiii. 
[34], 46). Moreover, Luke alone relates the declaration of Jesus 
that He had made supplication for Peter, and His charge to the 
Twelve, ‘Pray that ye enter not into temptation” (xxii. 32, 40), 


xlvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 


It was out of the fulness of His own experience that Jesus said, 
“Ask, and it shall be given you” (xi. 9). Again, Luke alone re- 
cords the parables which enjoin persistence in prayer, the Friend 
at Midnight (xi. 5-13) and the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1-8); 
and to the charge to “watch” (Mt. xxv. 13; Mk. xiii. 33) He adds 
“Cat every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail,” ete. 
(xxi. 36). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican the 
a between real and unreal prayer is illustrated (xviii. 
II-13). 

(c) The Third Gospel is also remarkable for the prominence 
which it gives to Praise and Thanksgiving. It begins and ends 
with worship in the temple (i. 9, xxiv. 53). Luke alone has pre- 
served for us those hymns which centuries ago passed from his 
Gospel into the daily worship of the Church: the Gloria in 
Excelsis, or Song of the Angels (ii 14); the Magnijicat, or Song 
of the blessed Virgin Mary (i. 46-55); the Benedictus, or Song of 
Zacharias (i. 68-79) ; and the unc Dimittis, or Song of Symeon 
(ii. 29-32). Far more often than in any other Gospel are we told 
that those who received special benefits “glorified God” (Sofafew 
tov @edv) for them (ii. 20, v. 25, 26, Vil. 16, xiii. 13, xvii. 15, 
xviii. 43). Comp. Mt. ix. 8, xv. 31; Mk. ii. 12. The expression 
“praising God” (aivetv tév @edv) is almost peculiar to Luke in 
N.T. (ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, xxiv. 53°; Acts ii. 47, iil. 8, 9). “ Bless- 
ing God” (evAoyely tov Oedv) is almost peculiar to Luke (i. 64, 
ii. 28, xxiv. 53): elsewhere only Jas. iii. 9. ‘Give praise (aivor 
dddvac) to God” occurs Luke xviii. 43 only. So also yatpeyv, 
which occurs eight times in Matthew and Mark, occurs nineteen 
times in Luke and Acts; yapd seven times in Matthew and Mark, 
thirteen times in Luke and Acts. 

(d) The Gospel of S. Luke. jis rightly styled “the most /izerary 
of the Gospels ” (Renan, Zes Evangiles, ch. xiii.). ‘S. Luke has 
more literary ambition than his fellows” (Sanday, Book by Book, 
p. 401). He possesses the art of composition. He knows not 
only how to tell a tale truthfully, but how to tell it with effect. He 
can feel contrasts and harmonies, and reproduce them for his 
readers. The way in which he tells the stories of the widow’s son 
at Nain, the sinner in Simon’s house, Martha and Mary at 
Bethany, and the walk to Emmaus, is quite exquisite. And one 
might go on giving other illustrations of his power, until one had 
mentioned nearly the whole Gospel. The sixth century was not 
far from the truth when it called him a painter, and said that he 
had painted the portrait of the Virgin. ‘There is no picture of her 
so complete as his. How lifelike are his sketches of Zacharias, 
Anna, Zacchzeus, Herod Antipas! And with how few touches is 
gach done! Asa rule Luke puts in fewer descriptive details than 
Mark. In his description of the Baptist he omits the strange attire 


§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlvii 


and food (Mk. i. 6; Mt. iii. 4). In the healing of Simon’s wife’s 
mother he omits the taking of her hand (Mk. i. 31; Mt. viii. 15). 
In that of the palsied he omits the crowding at the door (Mk. ii. 2). 
And there are plenty of such cases. But at other times we have 
an illuminating addition which is all his own (iii. 15, 21, iv. 13, 15, 
40, 42, V. I, 12, 15, 16, Vi. 12, vill. 47, etc.). His contrasts are 
not confined to personal traits, such as the unbelieving priest and 
the believing maiden (i. 18, 38), the self-abasing woman and the 
self-satisfied Pharisee (vii. 37 ff.), the thankless Jews and the thank- 
ful Samaritan (xvii. 17), the practical Martha and the contemplative 
Mary (x. 38-42), the hostile hierarchy and the attentive people 
(xix. 47, 48), and the like; the fundamental antithesis between 
Christ’s work and Satan’s! (iv. 13, x. 17-20, xiii. 16, xxii. 3, 
31, 53), Often exhibited in the opposition of the scribes and 
Pharisees to His work (xi. 52, xii. 1, xiii. 14, 31, XV. 2, XVi. 14, 
X1X. 39, 47, XX. 20), is brought out with special clearness. The 
development of the hostility of the Pharisees is one of the main 
threads in the narrative. It is this rare combination of descriptive 
power with simplicity and dignity, this insight into the lights and 
shadows of character and the conflict between spiritual forces, 
which makes this Gospel much more than a fulfilment of its 
original purpose (i. 4). There is no rhetoric, no polemics, no 
sectarian bitterness. It is by turns joyous and sad ; but even where 
it is most tragic it is almost always serene.? As the fine literary 
taste of Renan affirms, it is the most beautiful book in the world. 
(e) S. Luke is the only Evangelist who writes Ais¢ory as distinct 
from memoirs. He aims at writing “in order,” which probably 
means in chronological order (i. 5, 26, 36, 56, 59, li. 42, iil. 23, 
ix. 28, 37, 51, xxii. 1, 7), and he alone connects his narrative with 
the history of Syria and of the Roman Empire (ii. 1, iii. 1). The 
sixfold date (iii. 1) is specially remarkable: and it is possible tbat 
both it and ii. 1 were inserted as finishing touches to the narra- 
tive. The words éros (3$) and piv (12) occur more often in his 
writings than in the rest of N.T.: and this fact points to a special 
fondness for exactitude as regards time. Where he gives no date, 
—probably because he found none in his authorities,—he fre- 
quently lets us know what incidents are connected together, 
although he does not know in what year or time of year to place 
the group (iv. 1, 38, 40, vii. 1, 18, 24, Vili. 1, X. 1, 21, Xi. 37, xii. 1, 
xiii, 1, 31, xix. 11, 28, 41, xxii, 66, xxiv. 13). He is very much 
1 Both in Mark (i. 21-28) and in Luke (iv, 31-37) the miracle of healing the 
demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum is perhaps placed first as being 
typical of Christ’s whole work. But there is no evidence of any special 
“‘demonology” in Luke. With the doubtful exception of the ‘spirit of 
infirmity” (xiii. 10) there is no miracle of casting out demons which he alone 


records. 
7 A warked exception is the violent scene so graphically described xi. 53, 54. 


xviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 


less definite than Josephus or Tacitus; but that is only what we 
ought to expect. He had not their opportunities of consulting 
public records, and he was much less interested in chronology than 
they were. Yet it has been noticed that the Agricola of Tacitus 
contains no chronology until the last chapter is reached. The 
value of Christ’s words and works was quite independent of dates. 
Such remarks as he makes xvi. 14, xviii. 1, 9, xix. 11 throw far 
more light upon what follows than an exact note of time would 
have done. Here and there he seems to be giving us his own 
estimate of the situation, as an historian or biographer might do 
(ii. 50, iii, 15, viii. 30, xx. 20, xxii. 3, xxiii, 12): and the notes, 
whether they come from himself or his sources, are helpful. If 
chronology even in his Gospel is meagre, yet there is a continuity 
and development which may be taken as evidence of the true 
historic spirit! He follows the Saviour through the stages, not 
only of His ministry, but of His physical and moral growth (ii. 40, 
42, 51, 52, lil. 23, iv. 13, xxil. 28, 53). He traces the course of 
the ministry from Nazareth to Capernaum and other towns of 
Galilee, from Galilee to Samaria and Perzea, from Perzea to Jeru- 
salem, just as in the Acts he marks the progress of the Gospel, as 
represented successively by Stephen, Philip, Peter, and Paul, from 
Jerusalem to Antioch, from Antioch to Ephesus and Greece, and 
finally to Rome. 

(/) But along with these literary and historical features it has a 
marked domestic tone. In this Gospel we see most about Christ in 
His social intercourse with men. The meal in the house of Simon, 
in that of Martha and Mary, in that of a Pharisee, when the 
vharisees were denounced, in that of a leading Pharisee on a 
sabbath, when the dropsical man was healed, His sojourn with 
Zacchzeus, His walk to Emmaus and the supper there, are ali 
peculiar to Luke’s narrative, together with a number of parables, 
which have the same quiet and homely setting. The Good 
Samaritan in the inn, the Friend at Midnight, the Woman with the 
Leaven, the Master of the house rising and shutting the door, the 
Woman sweeping for the Lost Coin, the Father welcoming the Lost 
Son, all have this touch of familiar domesticity. And perhaps it 
is to this love of homely scenes that we may trace the fact that 
whereas Mk. (iv. 31) has the mustard-seed sown “on the earth,” 
and Mt. (xiii. 31) makes a man sow it “in his field,” Lk. (xiii. 19) 
tells us that a man sowed it “in his owx garden.” Birks, Hor. Lv. 

(ii.) When we consider the style and language of S. Luke, we 
are struck by two apparently opposite features,—his great com- 


1 Ramsay regards Luke as a historical writer of the highest order, one whe 
*¢ commands excellent means of knowledge . . . and brings to the treatment of 
his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight” (S. Paz 
the Traveller, pp. 2, 3, 20, 21, Hodder, 1895). 


§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlix 


mand of Greek and his very un-Greek use of Hebrew phrases and 
-onstructions. These two features produce a result which is so 
peculiar, that any one acquainted with them in detail would at 
once recognize as his any page torn out of either of his writings. 
This peculiarity impresses us less than that which distingu shes the 
writings of S. John, and which is felt even in a translation ; but it 
is much more easily analysed. It lies in the diction rather than in 
the manner, and its elements can readily be tabulated. But for this 
very reason a good deal of it is lost in translation, in which pecu- 
liarities of construction cannot always be reproduced. In any 
version the difference between S. Mark and S. John is felt by the 
ordinary reader. The most careful version would fail to show to 
an attentive student more than a good portion of the differences 
between S. Mark and S. Luke. 

The author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most 
versatile of all the N.T. writers. He can be as Hebraistic as the 
LXX, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. And, in the main, 
whether intentionally or not, he is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew 
society, and Greek in describing Greek society. It is impossible 
to determine how much of the Hebraistic style is due to the 
sources which he is employing, how much is voluntarily adopted 
by himself as suitable to the subject which he is treating. That 
Aramaic materials which he translated, or Greek materials which 
had come from an Aramaic source, influenced his language con- 
siderably, need not be doubted ; for it is where he had no such 
materials that his Greek shows least sign of such influences. In 
the second half of the Acts, where he writes of his own experiences, 
and is independent of information that has come from an Aramaic 
source, he writes in good late Greek. But then it is precisely here 
that he is describing scenes far away from Jerusalem in an Hellen- 
istic or Gentile atmosphere. So that it is quite possible that to 
some extent he is a free agent in this matter, and is not merely 
exhibiting the influence under which he is writing at the moment. 
No doubt it is true that, where he has used materials which directly 
or indirectly are Aramaic, there his style is Hebraistic ; but it may 
also be true that he has there a//owed his style to be Hebraistic, 
because he felt that such a style was appropriate to the subject- 
matter. 

He has enabled us to judge of the two styles by placing two 
highly characteristic specimens of each in immediate juxtaposition. 
In the Acts the change from the more Hebrew portion to the more 
Greek portion takes place gradually, just as in the narrative there 
is a change from a Hebrew period (i—v.), through a transitional 
period (vi.—xii.), to a Gentile period (xiii—xxviii.).1 But in the 

1 Compare in this respect the letter of Lysias (xxiii. 26-30) and the speech 
of posils (xxiv. 2-9) with the speeches of Peter (ii. 14-39, iii. 12-26). 


| THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 


Gospel the remarkably elegant and idiomatic Greek of the Preface 
is suddenly changed to the intensely Hebraistic Greek of the open- 
ing narrative. It is like going from a chapter in Xenophon to a 
chapter in the LXX.1_ And he never returns to the style of the 
Preface. In the Gospel itself it is simply a question of more or 
less Hebrew elements. They are strongest in the first two chapters, 
but they never entirely cease ; and they are specially common at 
the beginning of narratives, e.g. Vv. I, 12, 17, Vi. 1, 6, 12, viil. 22, 
ix. 18, 51, etc. It will generally be found that the parallel passages 
are, in the opening words, less Hebraistic than Luke. In construc- 
tion, even Matthew, a Jew writing for Jews, sometimes exhibits 
fewer Hebraisms than this versatile Gentile, who writes for Gentiles. 
Comp. Lk. ix. 28, 29, 33, 38, 39 with Mt. xvii. 1, 2, 4, 15; Lk. 
xili. 30 with Mt. xix. 30; Lk. xviii. 35 with Mt. xx. 29; Lk. xx. 1 
with Mt. xxi. 23. 

From this strong Hebraistic tinge in his language some (Tiele, 
Hofmann, Hahn) have drawn the unnecessary and improbable 
conclusion that the Evangelist was a Jew; while others, from the 
fact that some of the Hebraisms and many other expressions 
which occur in the Third Gospel and the Acts are found also in 
the Pauline Epistles, have drawn the quite impossible conclusion 
that this hypothetical Jew was none other than S. Paul himself. 
To mention nothing else, the “we” sections in the Acts are fatal 
to the latter theory. In writing of himself and his companions, 
what could induce the Apostle to change backwards and forwards 
between “they” and “we”? As to the former theory, good 
reasons have been given above for attributing both books to a 
Gentile and to S. Luke, who (as S. Paul clearly implies in Col. iv. 
11-14) was a Gentile. The Hebraistic colour in the Evangelist’s 
language, and the elements common to his diction and that of the 
Pauline Epistles, can be easily explained, and more satisfactorily 
explained, without an hypothesis which imports more difficulties 
than it solves. The Hebraisms in Luke come partly from his 
sources, partly from his knowledge of the LXX, and partly from 
his intercourse with S. Paul, who often in his presence discussed 
the O.T. with Jews in language which must often have been 
charged with Hebraisms. The expressions which are common to 
the two Lucan documents and the Pauline Epistles are partly 
mere accidents of language, and partly the result of companion- 
ship between the two writers. Two such men could not have 
been together so often without influencing one another’s language. 

S. Luke’s command of Greek is abundantly shown both in the 
Freedom of his constructions and also in the richness of his vocabulary. 


1 There are some who attribute the strongly Hebraistic tone of the first two 
chapters to a conscious and deliberate imitation of the LXX rather than to the 
influence of Aramaic sources. 


“: 


§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE li 


(a), The freedom of his constructions is seen not infrequently 
even in his Hebraisms. Two instances will suffice. (1) His 
frequent use of éyévero is often purely Hebraistic (i. 8, 9), 
sometimes less so (vi. 1), sometimes hardly Hebraistic at all 
(Acts ix. 3, xxi. 1). This will be found worked out in 
detail in a detached note at the end of ch. i. (2) His 
frequent use of periphrastic tenses, ze. the substantive verb 
with a present or perfect participle instead of the simple 
tense, exhibits a similar variety. 


The use of jv with pres. or perf. part. as a periphrasis for imperf, or pluperf. 
indic. is of Aramaic origin in many cases and is frequent in the Gospels,—most 
frequent in Luke; but it is not always easy to say whether it is a Hebraism or 
a use that might very well stand in classical Greek. For jy with pres. part. see 
i. 10, 21, 22, i, 33, 51; iv. 20, 31, 38, 44, V- 16, 17, 29, vi, 12, viii. 40, ix. 53, 
xi. 14, xiii. 10, II, xiv. I, xv. I, xix. 47, [xxi. 37], xxiii. 8, xxiv. 13, 32. Most 
of these are probably due to Hebrew or Aramaic influence ; but many would be 
admissible in classical Greek, and may be used to imply continuance of the 
action. Ini. 21, 22, ii. 51, iv. 31, xv. I, xix. 47, xxii. 8, xxiv. 13, 32 the 
simple imperf. follows immediately in the next clause or sentence. That such 
cases as il. 33, iv. 20, ix. 53, xl. 14, xiil. 10, II, xiv. I are Hebraistic need 
hardly be doubted. So also where 4v with perf. part. is used for the pluperf. 
(i. 7, ii. 26, iv. 16, 17, v.17, 1x. 32,45, xviil. 34), i. 7 and ix. 32 with most 
of the others are probably Hebraistic, but v. 17 almost certainly is not. 
Anyhow, Luke shows that he is able to give an Hellenic turn to his Hebraisms, 
so that they would less offend a Greek ear. Much the same might be said of 
his use of «af to introduce the apodosis, which may be quite classical (ii. 21), 
but may also be Hebraistic, especially where /dov is added (vii. 12, xxiv. 4), or 
airés (v. I, 17, Vili. I, 22, ix. 51, etc.): or of his frequent use of é» r@ with the 
infinitive (i. 8, 21, ii. 6, 43, v- I, etc.). 

Simcox, Zang. of N.T. pp. 131-134, has tabulated the use of periphrastic 
imperf. and pluperf. See also his remarks on Luke’s Hebraisms, Writers of 
N.T. pp. 19-22. 

But Luke’s freedom of construction is conspicuous in other respects, Al- 
though he sometimes co-ordinates clauses, joining them, Hebrew fashion, with 
a simple xal (i. 13, 14, 31-33, xvi. 19, etc.), yet he is able to vary his sentences 
with relatives, participles, dependent clauses, genitive absolutes, and the like, 
almost to any extent. We find this even in the most Hebraistic parts of the 
Gospel (i. 20, 26, 27, ii. 4, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 42, 43); but still more in other 
parts: see especially vii. 36-50. He is the only N.T. writer who uses the 
optative in indirect questions, both without Gy (i. 29, iii. 15, viii. 9, xxii. 3 ; Acts 
xvii. II, xxi. 31, xxv. 20) and with it (vi. 11, xv. 26; Acts v. 24, x. 17), some- 
times preceded by the article (i. 62, ix. 46). In xviii. 36 the a» is doubtful. 
The elegant and idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in Luke 
(i. 4, v. 9, ix. 36, xii. 46, xv. 16, xxiii, 41; Acts i. 22, ii. 22, iii, 21, 25, etc.), 
especially after was (ii. 20, iii. 19, ix. 43, xix. 37, xxiv. 25; Actsi. 1, x. 39, 
xill. 39, xxii. 10), whereas it occurs only twice in Matthew (xviii. 19, xxiv. 50) 
and once in Mark (vii. 13). His more frequent use of re is another instance of 
more idiomatic Greek (ii. 16, xii. 45, xv. 2, xxi. 11 (625), xxii, 66, xxiii, 12, 
xxiv. 20): only once in Mark and four times in Matthew. Sometimes we find 
the harsh Greek of Matthew or Mark improved in the parallel passage in Luke: 
2.g. TOv OedbvTwv & oToais TepiTatetv Kal domacrods év Tals ayopais (Mk. xii. 38) 
has an awkwardness which Luke avoids by inserting ¢iAovvTwy before dcmac: 
Bobs (xx. 46). Or again, d\Ad elrwuev "EE avOpirwv—égoB8odvro troy bxdov* 
Gxavres yap elxov Tov Iwdvny byTws Ste rpophrys qv (Mk. xi. 32) is smoothed 


ii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [$ 6. 


in more details than one in Luke: édy dé elrwpev EE avOpwrwy, 6 dads Aras 
Katadbdoe: Nuds* memecuevos yap ect lwavnv mpopyrny elvat (xx.6). Com- 
pare kai mpwl €vyvxa lav, which perhaps is a provincialism (Mk. i. 35), with” 
yevouévns 6 juépas (Lk. iv. 42). In the verses which follow, Luke’s diction is 
smoother than Mark’s. Compare also Lk. v. 29, 30 with Mk. ii. 15, 16 and 
Mt. ix. 10, 11; Lk. v. 36 with Mk. ii. 21 and Mt. ix. 16; Lk. vi. 11 with Mk. 
iii. 6 and Mt. xii. 14. The superior freedom and fulness of Luke’s narrative of 
the message of the Baptist (vii. 18-21), as compared with that of Matthew 
(xi. 2, 3), is very marked. 


(6) But Luke’s command of Greek is seen also in the 7ichness 
of his vocabulary. The number of words which occur in his two 
writings and nowhere else in N.T. is estimated at 750 or (includ- 
ing doubtful’ cases) 851; of which 26 occur in quotations from 
LXX. In the Gospel the words peculiar to Luke are 312; of 
which 52 are doubtful, and 11 occur in quotations. Some of these 
are found nowhere else in Greek literature. He is very fond of 
compound verbs, especially with did or éz/, or with two preposi- 
tions, as éravayev, érerépyecbat, avtimapepyecOar, ovykatatiGevat, 
mpocavaBaiver. He may have coined some of them for himself. 
The following are among the most remarkable words and expres- 
sions which occur either in both his writings and nowhere else in 
N.T., or in his Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. No account is 
ere taken of the large number, which are peculiar to the Acts. 

Those in thick type are found in LXX. Those with an 
asterisk are shown by Hobart to be frequent in medical writers. 
Many of these might be frequent in any writers. But the number 
of less common words, which are peculiar to Luke in N.T., and 
are fairly common in medical writers, is remarkable ; and those of 
them which are not found in LXX are specially to be noted. 


Thirty times in G. and A. éyévero 8€ (not Jn. x. 22). 

Vine times in G. and A. nuépa yiverat. 

Exght times in G. év adty TH (7uEpa, wpa, olxia). 

Seven times in G.and A. drrodéxer Oar, *cuvBaddrew, év rats nudpars Tavras. 

Six times in G.and A. ka@6t1, tmovnpds as an epithet of rvedua: six in G, 
éritTata, Aéyerv mapaBodny. 

Five times in G, and A. é€fjs, xadetRs Kal? Odjs THs, mpocéxeTe EavTots, 6 
otparnyés or ol orp. ToD iepod, 6 Weros or tioros (of God): five in G. 
advakpivery (in the legal sense), kal otros, kal ws, Aipvy, ev mug TOY. 

Four times in G. and A. Garrewv, diamropety, érraipery THY hoviv, ém-pavesy, 
Kabtévar, *oSuvacbar, *opictv, *ouvapmaterv, airy, évavtiov, evAaBas, 
kpat.oTos, * tapadeduuévos (in the medical sense of “palsied’’): four in G. 
*xatakAlverv, BaddAdvtiov, ddarivny, as nyy.ev. 

Three times in G. and A. dvafnretv, afvoty c. z7/i-2., SueAOetv ews Sucra- 
vat, émiBiBalerv, *érixeiperv, cuprAnpodv, aity TH wpa, am aldvos, Sikac- 
THs, TA Seopa, SovdAn, EvavTi, éorépa, OapBos, BovAy tod Ocod, *lacts, 
monirns, TH Hwepa TGV caPBatwv, *ovyyévera, Ta UrdpxovTa alr, xelp 
Kupiov: three in G. Oepamevery amd, ckamrev, okipTav, KaTa Td os, 
ouTevtés, TH uépa Tod caBBdrou, év mia TOY juepav. 


1 Owing to the various readings it may be doubted either (1) whether the 
word is used by Luke, or (2) whether it is not used by some other writer. 


§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lili 


Twice in G. and A. dvaderxvivar, dvaxabliew, *avaomav, avadalvew, 
* aveupioxev, avTei@etv, AtToypady, *aroTivdccev, * Statypetv, * ducxupl- 
ferOa, *Srodeverv, * évedpevery, emdetv, *ettévas, 77 exouévy, xp Karpod, 
*kataxAelety, KaTakodovdev, KAdows, KAtver Hepa, *KALvidiov, dpLvds, 
* rapaBialeoOat, meptdaptretv, mopevov eis eipyyny, * mpoBadXev, mpotopev- 
eo0a1, *rpocdoxta, *mpouTapxev, TTPATLA, TuvetvaL, TpPavpatilery, Tpaxvs, 
xpeodidérns: twice in G. dypa, * dvarerpos, * avtimapépxer Oa, dotparTery, 
atep, *avaoTypds, Bouvds, yeAGv, duayoyyifew, duadareiv, * Soxy, éxpvetnpl- 
Lew, éxtedety, errarteiv, * éravepyerOar, epypepla, Ledyos, jyeuoveveiv, ovoia, 
i] Tais, mpdxtwp, wpecPeia, mpodepetv, *omapyavovv, guKodayteiv, * vro- 
Xopetv. 

It is not worth while to make a complete list of the words (over 200 in 
number) which occur ovce in the Third Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. The 
following will give a good idea of their character :— 

dypavreiv, aOpoitew, GAdoyevyjs, apreoupyds, avaderkts, * dvdAnuyis, 
*dvaduveiv, *avtTtBaddeww, drapricuds, ameAmrilew, * amoxNelew, drocToua- 
rigew, * amowvyev, dpyiteAdvys, * abromrns, * ddpbs, * Beddvn, * Body, Bpdor- 
pos, *yipas, * SiaBaddAewv, duaypryoperv, * Sadelrevv, Stapepiopds, Siaveverv, 
*Stavénpa, * dtavucrepeverv, * diampayyatevter Oat, * Staceterv, * Siaxwpilerv, 
“ Sinyious, * éyxuos, * Bile, *exxpépacdar, * éxxwpeiv, * édxodv, * euBah- 
Lew, évdéxerat, érabpolfew, ererdjmep, mero épxer Gar, 7d émiBdddor, * evriped@s, 
émimopeverOai, émioiticpds, *émioxvetv, *emiyetv, * evpopeiv, * HurOavys, 
* Pewpia, * Ovpidv, *ixpas, lodyyedos, *katdBaois, * katadeiv, caradiOdfew, 
KaramAeiv, * katawdyeuv, kepdtiov, KALola, Kpewddy, KpuTTh, Aapmpas, * Ajposy 
*Xvowtedet, *petewpilerv, pepiorys, * 6deverv, buBpos, * dards, * dppds, 
mapmdnbel, mavdoxeiov, ravdoxevs, * wapddofos, wapakadvrrew, * maparhpnats, 
TEplKpUMTELV, Teptoikelv, TepioTav, Wiyyavov, * wéfew, * rwakldvov, * rAyppvpa, 
* rpaypatever Oa, mpouedeTav, * tpocavaBatver, mpocdaravar, mpocepyaférbat, 
* rpoowatew, * rriccev, * PHyHa, *aodhos, olkepa, ciidtew, oiTopérpior, 
*cuKdpivos, cuxomopéa, cuvkatatiévar, *ovvKvela, * cuvrlatev, * cvv= 
vew, “redeodopelv, tTetparAdos, *tTpatpa, * vypds, *bdpwarixbs, * to- 
otpwvvivat, * ddBnOpov, gpoviuws, * xaopa, * ddv. 

But the words which are peculiar to Luke in N.T. are by 
no means even the chief of the marks of his style. Still more 
striking are those expressions and constructions which he uses 
frequently, or more frequently than any other writer. Many of 
these occur more often in S. Luke’s writings than in all the rest 
_of N.T. A collection of them is rendered much more useful by 
being to some extent classified ; and the following lists have been 
made with a view to illustrating the affinities between the diction 
of S. Luke and of S. Paul and that of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
both jointly with the Pauline Epistles and also by itself. In this 
survey the Pastoral Epistles have been kept distinct from the main 
groups of the Pauline Epistles, in order to show their harmony with 
the diction of the Apostle’s beloved companion. Words peculiar to 
Luke and to the Pastoral Epistles are not improbably Pauline. 
Words which are found in other Pauline Epistles as well as 
in the Pastoral Epistles and in Luke’s writings are still more 
safely regarded as Pauline. 

Eight classes have been made; and in them the very great 
variety of the words included,—many of them quite classical or of 


liv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 


classical formation,—illustrate the richness of S. Luke’s vocabulary 
and his command of the Greek language. (1) Expressions peculiar 
to S. Luke and S. Paul in N.T. (2) Peculiar to S. Luke and 
S. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (3) Peculiar to S. Luke 
and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (4) Not found in any other 
Gospel and more frequent in S. Luke than in the rest of N.T. 
(5) Found in one or more of the other Gospels, but more fre- 
quent in S. Luke than in the rest of N.T. (6) Due to Hebrew 
influence. (7) Miscellaneous expressions and constructions which 
are specially frequent in his writings. (8) Expressions probably or 
possibly medical. In the first of these classes the second list con- 
tains expressions peculiar to the writers in question, although not 
frequent in Luke. The figures state the number of times which 
the word occurs in that book or group; and in fractions the upper 
figures indicates the number of times that the word occurs in the 
writings of Luke, the lower figure the number of times which it 
occurs elsewhere: e.g. in class 3 the fraction ? means twice in 
Luke’s writings and once in Hebrews; and in classes 4 and 5 the 
fraction } means seven times in Luke’s writings and four times in 
the other books of N.T. Where various readings render the exact 
proportions doubtful a “‘c.” is placed in front of the fraction; e.g. ¢. $. 
In classes 1 and 2, when a reference to chapter and verse is given, 
this is the only instance of the use of the word in that book or group. 


(1) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul in N.T. 





Main. 






























OAT Te Ae Ge 3 xii. 23. | 2 Th. ii. 10 
amonoyeta bas . - 2 6 2 
amd Tov viv. . e 5 xviii, 6 | 2 Cor. v. 16 
*arevifew e ° 2 Io 2 
*dromos ° . | xxiii, 41 2 2 Th. iii. 2 
OiarropeterOar ° 3 xvi. 4 Rom. xv. 24 
CyKGNELY = Veni ln at) We 6 Rom. viii. Fe 
76 elpnuévov e - | ii, 24 2 Rom. i ae I 
éEatrooré\New le . 3 7 
épyacia Stig . . | xii. 58 4 Eph. iv. 19 
épiordvar . - . 7 II edt TAS: 2 
*nouxdgew . ° . 2 2 1 Th. iv. 11 
idovd yap e e e 5 ix, It 2 Cor. Vii. II 
Kakoupyos . ° . 3 2 Tim. ii. 9 
KaTayyeNer e e II 
kaTdyew . |v. If 7 Rom. x. 6 
KQTQVTG@P - ‘ 9 4 i 









§ 6.] 






xaTratiwO7vas 


olkovoula . 
7a mepl - 


Waruds . 





6 Abyos 7. Kuplov 


cuverdévat, -Letv 


B®» Ww 








2 Th, i. 
ped Yost 


5 
1 Cor. iv. 4 
3 


CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lv 


S. Luke. S. PavL. | 


Past. 


?1 Tim. i. 4 


All the above are proportionately common in S. Luke’s writings ; but there 
are many more which illustrate the affinities between the two writers ; e.g. 


&5ndos . 
alpvidios =n 


alxpahwrlfew 


avdyvwols .» 
avddeua . 
dvaxplvev » 
dvaNloxew » 
dvadvew . 
*dvaréwrey » 
GvaCTATOUP » 
dvatlOccOat e 
*dveots » e 
dvénros e 
advo . . 
dvratédoue 


dvratoxplvecOas 


dvriketo@at . 


dvrihapBdverPat 


dreOjs e 
drewh ° 
drodekvivas 
dmoBohkh » 
*drrohover Oat 
GTosTONH 
dmpboKoTos » 
dmwbeicbat . 
dpa ; or dpa; 
dporpiav 


*ioddadew e 
f dromos * 
axdpioTos » 
( BépBapos 
{ Biwrixds 
Bvelifev 


déqoww troveic Oa 


dexrés. 5 


coeeoeevsrvecseecse5usoeee#eset*eeeeeeteeeeeeeseteeeee eee e 


xl. 44 
xx. 34 
xxi, 24 


xxill, 14 
ix. 54 
xii. 36 


vi. 35 


?Xxv, 21 
2 
XXv. 14 
xxiv. 23 


x. 35 


I Cor. xiv. 8 
Telha ves 

2 
2 Cor. iii. 14 

5 

10 

2? 
Phil. i, 23 
Philem, 12 
Gal. v. 12 
Gal. ii, 2 

4 

3 


Rom. xi. 9 
Rom. ix. 20 


4 


Rem. i. 30 
Eph. vi. 9 

2 
Rom. xi. 15 
1 Cor. vi. I1 

3 

2 

2 
Gal. ii. 17 
1 Cor. ix. 10 
Tebhs vers 
Panne yrs 25 


Phil. i. 4 


2 Tim. iii. 6 
1 Tim. iv. 13 


2 
2 Tim. iii. 9 


2 
1 Tim. vi. 2 
2 Tim. iii. 2 


1 Tim. i. 19 


2 Tim. iii. 2 


1 Tim. vi. 9 
1 Tim. ii. I 


fevla . ° 
gupacOar 


lvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING 
S. LuKg. 
Gosp. Acts, 

SiayyA\Xew . ° a) ix) 60: xxi. 26 
Oratpety = ° . | xv. 12 
Ouarayh =n = - vii. 53 
Ovepunvetew i » | xxiv. 27 | ix. 36 
Obypua e ° ry 5 Are x 2 
Opbjmos 5 5 0 2 
Suvdorns F . | i. 52 viii. 27 
el déxal , - . | xi. 18 
eupavis ‘ . x. 40 
&vdokos = 5 5 2 
evdverOas . ‘ . | xxiv. 49 
évKaKkely == g ’ . | xviii. I 
&vvomos = . ° xix. 39 
eLaprifey . F ‘3 xxi. 5 
éfoubévery . é - 2 iv. II 
éfovola Tr. oxbrous » | xxil. 53 
eEouordfew . 5 a |) ssaik 25 
émawep 5 . | xvi. 8 
emravaTaverOat .» 5356 
éméxew ° . Sl Sane 4 2 
émielkeia sg . - Xxlv. 4 
émipmeneto bas . ° 2 
éxloracis , ° xxiv. 12 
émipalvew . C ot 79 XXvii, 20 
evaryyedtor7s - : xxl. 8 
evyev7s ° A li sabes 1) |) Sea ah 
evceBew ° ° XVil. 23 
féev 7. mvetpare » : Xviil. 25 
&npla . . ° e 2 
forypety a c » |v. 10 

*Swoyovely 4 26 . | xvii. 33 | vii. 19 
Géarpoy . ° . 2 
KaOnkew 4 ; XXxil, 22 
KarevOvvep . . . | i. 79 
KivOEvvevelp » - » | Vill. 23 
Kpara.ovaGas e : 2 
Kupieve ly > . | xxii, 25 
Aelrevy = fail ; . | xviii. 22 
papripecba. F é xx. 26 
peQoTdvas -ew =, . | xvi. 4 2 
peGtoKer Gar ° o | xii. 45 
pépts . ° ° o | X. 42 2 
peraddbvat . 5 | iii. er 
vomod.ddoKahos . - |v. 17 v. 34 
vorglferbar. ° . 2 
voulerew . ° . xXx. 31 

. 8 


TO S. LUKE (§ 6 
S. Pav. 
Main. Past. 
Rom. ix. 17 


1 Cor. xii, 11 
Rom. xiii. 2 


4 
2 


4 
Rom, x. 20 
2 


14 
5 
1 Cor, ix. 21 


8 
Col. i. 13 

3 

4 
Rom. ii. 17 
Phil. ii. 16 
2 Cor. x. I 


2 Cor. xi. 28 


Eph. iv. 11 
1 Cor. i. 26 


Rom, xii, 11 
2 


1 Cor, iv. 9 
Rom. i. 28 

2 
1 Cor. xv. 30 


-bvwHHH WN 


Xxvili. 23| Philem. 22 


xxi. 24 


2 


2 Tim. iv. 7 
1 Tim. vi. 15 


2 Tim. iii. 17 


1 Tim, iv. 16 
1 Tim. iii. 5 


2 
1 Tim. v. 4 


2 Tim. ii, 26 
I Tim, vi. 13 


1 Tim. vi. 15 


1 Tim. i. 7 
Tit. ii, 10 


§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE iv 





dvoudter . F . 2 xix. 13 6 2 Tim. ii. 19 
értacla Sn e ° 2 xxvi, 19 | 2 Cor. xii. I 

dovérns Bal Ks >| 75 Eph. iv. 24 

éyouoy . » | iii, 14 

ways : ° ° . | xxi. 34 Rom, xi. 9 3 
mavot\la . ° » | xi. 22 

mavoupyla . 2 e | Xx. 23 4 

awavTws ° e e | iv. 23 3 5 

mwaparyyerla - ° 2 1 Th. iv. 2 2 
Tapackevafey 4 e x. 10 3 

mapaxepdvey . ’ 2 1 Cor. xvi. 6 | Tit. iii. 32 
mapokiver bat - ° xvii. 16 | 1 Cor. xiii. 5 

mappnoidgerbas . . 2 

matpla ° . - | i. 4 iii, 25 Eph. iii. 15 

mweOapxe . - . 3 Tit. iii, 1 
meplepyos . e ° xix. 19 1 Tim. v. 13 
mwepmoetcOas = « ~— o || XVil. 33 | xx. 28 1 Tim. iii. 13 
éml mretov . . 3 2 
wAnpodpopety ° «|i I 2 
mwonTela = g wks xxii, 28 | Eph. i. 12 

moNreverOas - ~ xxiii. I Phil, i. 27 

mopety : ° e ix, 21 2 

mpecBurépioy ° » | xxii, 66 | xxii. 5 1 Tim. iv. 14 
mpecBirys » : obi. IS Philem. 9 Tit. ii. 2 
mpodorns . . - | vi. 16 vii. 52 2 Tim. iii. 4 
mMpoemeiyp 5 ele i, 16 2 

Tpobuula « e > xvii. II 

mpoLoem te ge ii, 31 Gal. iii. 8 

WpoKbTTEw « . e | i. 52 2 3 
Tpbvowa ° . . xxiv. 2 | Rom. xiii. 14 

mpoopliew . ° . iv. 28 5 

powers e ° xix. 36 2 Tim. iii. 4 
kara mpbcwrop » | i. 31 2 2 : 

papolvew . s . xvi. 22 2 Cor. xL 25 

céBacua ln ° ° xvii. 23 | 2 Th. ii. 4 

oKorety ° 2 » | xi. 35 5 

oroxety =n ~ - xxi. 24 

ovyxadifew , ° » | xxi. 55 Eph. ii. 6 

ouykrelew . «| Ve 3 

ovyxaipev .» ° . 3 4 

ouppiBagevr. - - 3 4 

ouvavrihauBdverr . » | X. 40 Rom. viii. 26 

civiecuos . ° ° Vill. 23 3 

ouvéKdtuos » - - xix. 29 | 2 Cor. viii. 19 

cuvecblew - e | xv. 2 xi5 4 

cuvevookely » ° 2 | xi. 48 2 3 

ovvoxy ° ° e | xxi. 25 2 Cor. ii. 4 

auoré\e e e v. 6 I Cor. vii. 29 


— 





viii 





cwparik6s » 
70 TWTNPLOP « 
cwppoovvn » 
TETpaTOOa « 
*ripnots 2 
Sotvat Tbrop 
UBpis . 

vm7}Koos 

brwmidgev 
vorépnua 

paokew 

gravOpurla 
pirdpyupos . 
popos . ° 
ppbyynois =. 
xaplferOas « 


Xapiroov 
XEltporovety 
Xp7TOat 


ee eersrpeeeeseveeeeeeeeete 








THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 





[S6. 





1 Tim. iv. 8 
xxviii. 28] Eph. vi. 17 


XXVi. 25 2 
2 Rom. i. 23 
2 1 Cor. vii. 19 
2 
2 2 Cor. xii. 10 
vii. 39 2 
1 Cor. ix. 27 
8 
2 Rom. i, 22 
XXVill. 2 Tit. ili, 4 
2 Tim. iii. 2 
2 
Eph. i. 8 
4 15 
Eph. i. 6 
xiv. 23 | 2 Cor. viii. 19 
2 3 


(2) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul and the 
Lpisile to the Hebrews. 


dueurros s 
dvaykatos 
advdpyvnows =, 
dvramod.dévas 
adéiotv . ° 
amoketcbat . 
GrohUTpwos » 
ao pahns e 
agiuTdvas 
BovA} . ° 
Orapapriper Gas 
Ov Av airlay . 
expepery . 
éxpevyery 
évduvayotv 
évrvyxavew 
émlOeats ° 
Karapyev =e 
Aecroupyety » 


NhWON AW 





Tit. iii, 14 
2 Th. i 
Col. i. 5 


7 
Phil. iii. 1 
2 Cor. xii. 8 


2 
1 Th. iv. 6 


3 
1 Tim. vi. 7 
3 


Sy 


2 
2 Tim. i. 10 
Rom, xv. 27 


§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lix 














2 
4 2 
2 18? ii. 6 
= 5 Rom. i. 4 iv. 7 
mapatretcOat » 3 xxv. II 4 3 
mapdKAnots . 2 4 19 1 Tim. iv. 13 3 
jepuaipey =e 2 2 Cor. iii. 16 x. 55 
mepépxerOae « 2 1 Tim, v. 13| xi. 37 
oxhnpiver | xix. 9 | Rom. ix, 18 4 
. 2 
: 3 2 Tim. ii. 10 2 
° Gal. ii. 12 x. 38 
. 2 Cor. i, 21 i 


(3) Expressions peculiar to S. Lukes Writings and to the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. 


dvadéyecOart, dvafewpeiv}, dvactdcews tvyxdvew, *dvopfotvd, dvurepor}t, 
* dradddooew F, dmoypagerBbact, dpxmyés$, doddevrost, doreost, dorpor ¥, 
*Bojbea4, duaridecPart, per’ elpivnst, elovévar?, éxdelrew?, * evoxdeiv}, Evrpo- 
pos?, émiaré\derv?, eowrepost, * edOeros}, leparela}, iidoxecOart, xatarwavery, 
Karapevyery ; 4, xKepdratov f, AUTpworst by péroxort, dp0dst, madasodvd, els rd 
mavrenést, *wapadteobast, mapokeiv}, *mapotvoudst, rarpidpyns?, meptxetoGal 
rt, woppwOevt, cvvarrgv $, cxedbr FZ, Tedelwoist, Urapiist, Excepting dvaGewpeiv, 
dvacrdcews Tuyxdvewv, dvwtepov, éowrepos, and els rd wavTedés, all the above are 
in LXX. 


(4) Expressions not found in the other Gospels and more frequent 
in S. Luke's Writings than in all the rest of N.T. 


dyadNlacts$, alveiv$, *dvardurewt, av0’ Gv, droroyeicbas, dogpddrea?, 
* drevifew 12, * dromwos}, agiordvat 4, Bovn$, Bpédos$, dtawapriperbar 4, Starrop- 
everOart, éyxadeiv$, EupoBosF, eLamooréNew 19, éwépxer Oars, *épyacia $, écOjs#, 
evayyerlferGat i, ediordvat 3, * novydfevF, xaTayev $, KaTavTGy £, * xatépxerOar 
¢. 44, 6 Adyos Tod Kuplov$, pePiordvar§, wépis§, wjv+P, awd tov viv}, érraciat, 
* oplfew$, maverOa$, Ta mepl 3, mpeoBurépovt, mpotpxeras c. $, *mpood-yeuv c.F, 
awukvos $, ovyar t, omevdew }, *creipat, cvvavrgvs, vrdpxew (excluding 7a brdp- 
xovra) 22, *drodéxecOar}, *drodapPdvewt, broorpépe ’ : and several others 
which occur twice in Luke and once elsewhere. All of these occur in LXX, 
except dvaréurew, 


(5) Expressions found in one or more of the other Gospels, but mor 
eect in S. Luke's Writings than in all the rest of N.T. 
ayev 6. exo SEER, <orepov § % ér aAnbeias$, auddrepor $ 

dvaryewv 22, * avaipety 2, dvurrdvat 6.335 avr éyew 8, dxmy yet hey c. 28 

drordacewv py Biplane: Kat aités32, adeois -dpapriay § §, Boav c.& 

er pov 6.8, deioOar tS, duapepiley $ 3, Siavotyet, Siaczpépeny 8, 

vacwlev$, diardocev?, diepxerGar ¢. 33, SupyeirGar 5, dotvar 3, 


Ix THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 


eav$, eyyilew 24, Host, «i St ppye§, els Exarros ts elodyew$, eto- 
pepe $, éxarovrdpxs "yy éxotacis$, éAenucovvyn 1, euarysmAavat, 
SREB evade S, edyew s, eaipvas ts earns, eényctobar4, 
eEurrdvat '5 on RE STEN oe CTE EY , Sra Remmere ees éros Z§, 
ev HS _Mpepus ts, kal Tysgpav 12, Oavpdlew emit, *idoGari$, idod 
yap$, ixavés 25, iwarurpos3, nae kere katavoetv &, 
ees KoA\Aao Oat, kovioprosy, +, Kpeuav s, kTacOar$, kwAvew 44, 
mas 6 Nadst*, peyadiver §, * HEC OVUETIOY, 3, pvnpos, vopilew s, Vopit- 
Kos §, ) oikoupevn #, dvéuate*g , ép0s3, ravraxod§, eizetv Or HilloA 
eee ye 14, mapayiverba ¢. 7, Sains Tapaxpyua * 2 , Tepi- 
xwpos $, mnpaS, ry Getv 22, *rAHO0s%5, wAnvis, *zAnpyst?, mpoc- 
doxav a mpooriBévat 13, GAR BEVIS pipn%, carkedew$, ordoisg, 
dua ordpartos ¢, nee oe qs ouycadeiyt, owlNanetyay po Nate 
Paver}, ROSE tow 6 Z 3 ovvepxer Oats. » *ovvexew§ ED 
ovvTBévat 2 T Taooew ¢. 2 Tetpapxys 3. » tis €€ Snare, ov Tporovt p 
bBpilewZ, ra brapyovra ¥, brodexvivars, tyros 2, xadav $, woe 6.48. 
Excepting axpiBéorepov, ddeois duaptidy, CLavtys, 6vopatt, TeTpapxys, 
and tis e€ tyuar, all the above are found in LXX. 

To these may be added a few which are specially frequent in 
Luke’s writings, although not ue excess of the rest of N. = taken 
together : dpxer arti, ape ¢.29, dexeoGarzs, babi = 6 Adyos 
Tov @cov+$, Dixvoss, SUES GT Te a Tpoomirrew Fy ripest eae 
oxilew 8, tpepey +, tpopy8, xapis twenty-five times in Lk. and Acts, 
not in Mt. or Mk., and only thrice in Jn. 

Phrases which indicate the expression of emotion are unusually 
common, and belong to the picturesqueness of Luke’s style; e.g. 
poBos péyas$, xapa meyaAn Or ToAAH*, Hovy peyddy FF. 

Equally remarkable is his fondness for avyp, where others have 
avOpwros or <is or nothing. Thus, vi. 8 7@ dvdpi, Mt. and Mk. ro 
avOparre ; Vili. 27 avip tis, Mk. avOpwros ; ix. 38 avnp, Mt. avOpwrros, 
Mk, els; xxiii. 50 avyp, Mt. av@pwzos, Mk. nothing. Comp. v. 8, 
12, 18, Vili. 38, ix. 3°, xxii. 63: and the word is very much more 
frequent i in Lk. than in all the other Gospels together. 

The expression zais airot or cov in the sense ‘of God's servant” 
is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (i. 54, 69 ; Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 25, 27, 30), 
with the exception of Mt. xii. 18, which is a quotation from Is. 
xlii, 1. 


(6) Expressions frequent in S. Luke's Writings and probably 
due to Hebrew Influence. 


The frequent use of éyévero is discussed at the end of ch. i. 
Add to this Luke’s fondness for évdatov, which does not occur 
in Mt. or Mk. and only once in Jn. (xx. 30). It is found more 
than thirty times in Lk. and Acts, especially 1 in the phrase évamuov 
Tov @eod (i. 19, 75, Xli. 6, XVI. 15) Or Kupiov (i. 15). With this com- 


§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xi 


pare mpd mpog wo Twos (vii. 27, ix. 52, x. 1) and kata tpdcH 
mov twvos (ii. 31). The frequent use of idov (i. 38, it, 34, 48, 
Wil, 25, 27,34, etc.) and kai ido (i. 20, 31, 36, li. 25, Vv. 12, Vil. 12, 
37, etc.) ; of p papa, for the matter of what is spoken (i. 65, ii. 15, 
19, 51)3 of oikos. in the sense of “family” (i. 27, 33, 69, il. 4, 
X. 5, XIX. 9); of efs in the sense of tis (v. 12, 17, Vill. 22, Xill. 10, 
xx. I) or of zp@ros (xxiv. 1); of UWeoros for “the Most High 7 
(i. 32, 35, 76, Vi. 35), illustrates the same kind of influence. So 
also do such expressions as Toveiv éXeos peta (2 92g.% 37) 
and peyaddvery éXeos peta (i. 58); rovetv Kparos (i. 51); €x 
kotAias pyntpés (i. 15); combinations with év 77 kapdia or év 
tats x. such as diaddyecOa (iii. 15, v. 22 ; COMP. XXIV. 38), diary- 
petv (it. 51), PéoGax (i. 66, xxi. 14), owBaddew (ii. 19); év Tats 
npepats (i. 5, 39, il. I, iv. 2, 25, V. 35, etc.); TH MmEpa Tov caf- 
Barov (xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5); with perhaps 8a ordpuaros (i. 70), 
where both the expression and the omission of the article seem to 
be Hebraistic: in LXX we commonly have, however, év 74 ordpare 
or ék Tov otduaros. Nearly all these expressions are found in the 
Acts also, in some cases very often. The frequent use of peri- 
phrastic tenses has been pointed out above (p. li) as being due 
in many cases to Hebraistic influence. The same may be said of 
the attributive or characterizing genitive, which is specially common 
in Luke (iv. 22, xvi. 8, 9, xviii. 6; comp. x. 6, xx. 34, 36); 
and of the frequent use of kai airds (ii. 28, v. I, 17, Vili. 1, 22, 
XVii. 11, xix. 2), kal airy (ii. 37), and kal adrof (xiv. 1, xxiv. 14) 
after éyévero, xai idov, and the like. Phrases like doéaleuv rov 
@edv (v. 25, 26, vii. 16, xili, 13, XVil. 15, XVill. 43, Xxill. 47), 6 
Adyos Tod Meod (v. I, Vill. 11, 21, xi. 28), and éradpecy Tv 
g@wvyyv (xi. 27) may be placed under the same head; and they all 
of them occur several times in the Acts. 

In common with other N.T. writers S. Luke uses several 
Hebrew words, which may be mentioned here, although they are 
not specially common in his writings: dpyy (iv. 24, xl. 37, XVill. 
17, etc. ), BeceBovrA (xi. 15, 18, 19), yéevva (xii. 5), TATH% (ii AN, 
EXO FT, 7, 9, I, 12, gn od8Barov (I¥;, 16, 35, Vis Ey, 2,5. 75 9, 
etc.), caravas (x. 18, xi. 18, xiii. 16, etc.). Three others eccur 
once in his Gospel and nowhere else in N.T.; Baros (xv 6), 
Kopos (Xvi. 7). oixepa (i. 15). Other words, although Gree* in 
origin, are used by him, as by other N.T. writers, in a sense which 
is due to Hebrew influence; ayyedos (i. 11, 13, 18, ete.), yeap- 
parevs {V. 21, 30, Vi. 7, ix. 22, etc.), Bud BoXos (iv. 2-33, Vill. 12), 
eOvn (ii. 32, XVill. 32, Xxi. 24 bis, etc.), eienvy (i. 79, i. 29, Vil. 49, 
etc.), xvptos (1. 6, 9, II, 15, etc.); and édypepia (i. 5, 8) is a Gree k 
word specially formed to express a Hebrew idea. 


\xii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 


(7) Miscellaneous Expressions and Constructions which are 
specially frequent in S. Luke's Writings. 


In his use of the avtic/e he has several favourite constructions. 
He is very fond of év r@ followed by a present infinitive to express 
time during which (i. 8, 21, li. 6, 43, V. I, 12, Vill. 5, 42, etc.) or 
by an aorist infinitive to express time after which (ii. 27, iii. 21, 
ix. 34, 36, x1. 37, etc.); also of rod with an infinitive to express 
purpose or result (i. 73, il. 27, Vv. 7, xii. 42, etc.). He frequently 
employs 76 to introduce a whole clause, especially interrogations, 
much as we use inverted commas (i. 62, ix. 46, xix. 48, xxii. 2, 4, 
23, 24, 37). 

In the case of certain verbs he has a preference for special 
constructions. After verbs of speaking, answering, and the like 
he very often has pds and the accusative instead of the simple 
dative. Thus, we have etreiy mpos (1. 13, 18, 28, 34, 61, ii. 15, 
34, 48, 49, etc.), AaAeiy mpos di. 19, 55; ii. 18, 20, xii. 3, etc.), A€yety 
7pos (iv. 21, v. 36, Vil. 24, Vili. 25, ix 23, etc.), droxpiver Gan pos 
(iv. 4, Vi. 3, XIV. 5), yoyyvCew pds (Vv. 30), cvvlynretv mpds (xxii. 23), 
ovvAaXeiv zpés (iv. 36). It often happens that where Mt. or Mk 
has the dative, Luke has the accusative with zpds (Mt. ix. 11; Mk 
i. 16; Lk. v. 30) Whereas others prefer éf¢pxeoOar éx, he has 
eee a6 (iv. 35, 41, Vv. 8, viii. 2, 29, 33> 35> 38, ix. 5, etc.), 
and for Oavyalew zu he prefers Barpdew éri tive (il. 33, IV. 22, 
ix. 43, xx. 26). For Gepazeveww vécous he sometimes has Oepareveww 
a7 voowy (V. 15, Vil. 21, viii. 2). He is fond of the infinitive after 
dua 76 (ii. 4, Vill. 6, ix. 7, xi. 8, xvill. 5, etc.), wera 7d (xii, 5, xxii 
20), and zpo rod (il. 21, xxil. 15). The quite classical éyew tu is 
common (vii. 42, ix. 58, xi. 6, xli. 17, 50, xiv. 14). His use of the 
optative has been mentioned above (p. li). 

Participles with the article often take the place of substantives 
(ii. 27, iv. 16, viii. 34, xxii. 22, xxiv. 14). They are frequently 
added to verbs in a picturesque and classical manner: avacravrtes 
e¢Bador (iv. 29); kaioas ediSackev (Vv. 3), orabels exeAevoer (xviii. 
40), otpadeis éreripnoe (ix. 55), etc. They are sometimes strung 
together without a conjunction (ii. 36, iv. 35, V. IT, 19; 25 ,ebe)- 

S. Luke is very fond of vds, and especially of the stronger 
form das. It is not always easy to determine which is the right 
reading ; but amas is certainly very common (iii. 21, iv. 6, v. 26, 
vill. 37, ix. 15, Xix. 37, 48, xxill. 1; also in Acts). Elsewhere in 
N.T. azas is rare. Not unfrequently Luke has zs or das where 
the others have nothing (iil. 155 16,25; iv. 37, V- 11, 28, VL 4 Eo. 
17, 19, 30, Vil. 35, etc.). mas 6 Aads and amas 6 X. are very freq. 

In the use of certain prepositions he has some characteristic 
expressions : els 7a Gra (i. 44, ix. 44) and <is ras dxods (vii. 1), év 
rots dow (iv. 21) and é& pécw (i. 46, Vili. 7, X. 3, XXL. 21, xxil. 27, 55, 


§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE Ixiii 


xxiv. 36); Kata 7d os (i. Q, ii. 42, xxii. 39) 70 elBic pévov (ii. 27), 
70 elwOés (iv. 16), 70 cipnpevoy (ii. 24), and td dpicpévov (xxii. 22) ; 
Tapa rods 7ddas (Vii. 38, Vill. 35, 41, XVil. 16), whereas Mark has 
mpos 7. 7ddas (Vv. 22, vii. 25). Luke is very fond of ovv, which 
is rather rare in the other Gospels but is very frequent in both of 
Luke’s writings. Sometimes he has ovv where the others have 
pera. (viii. 38, 51, xxii, 14, 56) or kai (xx. 1) or nothing (v. 19). 

The pronouns ards (see below) and ovTos are specially common. 
The latter is added to a numeral, tpiryy Tavtny ipépay (xxiv. 21), 
to make it more definite. ris ¢€ duav; is almost peculiar to him 
(xi. 5, Xl. 25, xiv. 28, xv. 4, xvii. 7), and so also is tis éotw otros 
6s; (v. 21, vil. 49). The indefinite tvs with nouns is freq. 

In using conjunctions he is very fond of combining 5€ with «ai, 
a combination which occurs twenty-six times in his Gospel (ii. 4, 
iil. 9, 12, iv. 41, Vv. 10, 36, vi. 6, ix. 61, etc.) and seven in the Acts. 
It is rare in the other Gospels. His Hebraistic use of xai airdés, 
avTy Or avrot, and of xat idov, to introduce the apodosis to éyévero 
and the like, has been pointed out above (p. lxi). But Luke is 
also fond of kai airés at the beginning of sentences or independent 
clauses (i. 17, 22, iii. 23, iv. 15, V. 37, Vi. 20, xv. 14, etc.), and 
of kai otros, which is peculiar to him (i. 36, viii. 41?, xvi. 1, 
xx. 28). In quoting sayings he most frequently uses 8¢, and «fev 
d€ occurs forty-six times in the Gospel and fourteen in the Acts. 
It is not found in Mt. or Mk., and perhaps only once in Jn. 
(xii. 6 [viii. 11,] ix. 37?): they prefer é 6 0é eirev, or Kal A€yet, KT. 
Luke also has eAcyev dé nine times in the Gospel ; it occurs twice 
in Mk, once in Jn., and never in Mt. Five times he begins a 
sentence with a! és (temporal), which is not found elsewhere in 
N.T. (xv. 25, xix. 41, xxii. 66, xxiii. 26; Actsi. 10). The inter- 
rogative «i is found eighteen times in Gospel and Acts (vi. 7, 9, 
Xlil. 23, Xiv. 28, 31, xxil. 49, 67, etc.), ef d& uyye five times, and ef 
dpa twice. All of these are comparatively rare elsewhere. 

The idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in both 
books (i. 4, il. 20, ili. 19, Vv. 9, ix. 36, 43, xil. 46, xv. 16, xix. 37, 
etc.): it is rare in Mt. and Mk., and is not common in Jn. 

After rotro he has éru in Gospel and Acts (x. 11, xii. 39, etc.) ; 
Mt. and Mk. never; Jn. only after dua rotro. 

He is fond of combinations of cognate words, e.g. purdacorras 
pvdaxds (il. 8), epoByOnoay poBov péyay (ii. 9), Barris bevres 76 Bar- 
TLO A (vil. 29), 7 0 adotpary aoTparrovca ae 24). Some of these 
are Hebraistic, especially such as éruupig érefvpyoa (xxii. 15). 


(8) Expressions probably or possibly medical. 


_ It was perhaps not until 1841 that attention was called to the 
existence of medical phraseology in the writings of S. Luke. In the 


Ixiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [g 6. 


Gentleman’s Magazine for June 1841 a paper appeared on the 
subject, and the words ayAvs (Acts xiii. 11), xpauraAn (Lk. xxi. 34), 
TapadeAvpéevos (v. 18, 24; Acts vill. 7, ix. 33), mapofvopos (Acts 
XV. 39), ouvexoméevn mupeTo peyddw (Lk. iv. 38), and sdpwzixds 
(xiv. 2) were given as instances of technical medical language. 
Since then Dr. Plumptre and others have touched on the subject ; 
and in’ 1882 Dr. Hobart published his work on Zhe Medical 
Language of St. Luke, Dublin and London. He has collected 
over 400 words from the Gospel and the Acts, which in the main 
are either peculiar to Luke or are used by him more often than 
by other N.T. writers, and which are also used (and often very 
frequently) by Greek medical writers. He gives abundant quota- 
tions from such writers, that we may see for ourselves; and the 
work was well worth doing. But there can be no doubt that the 
number of words in the Gospel and the Acts which are due to 
the Evangelist’s professional training is something very much less 
than this. It may be doubted whether there are a hundred such 
words. But even if there are twenty-five, the fact is a considerable 
confirmation of the ancient and universal tradition that “ Luke the 
beloved physician” is the author of both these books. Of 
Dr. Hobart’s long list of words more than eighty per cent. are 
found in LXX, mostly in books known to S. Luke, and sometimes 
occurring very frequently in them. In all such cases it is more 
reasonable to suppose that Luke’s use of the word is due to his 
knowledge of LXX, rather than to his professional training. In 
the case of some words, both of these causes may have been at 
work. In the case of others, the medical training, and not famili- 
arity with LXX, may be the cause. But in most cases the prob- 
ability is the other way. Unless the expression is known to be 
distinctly a medical one, if it occurs in books of LXX which were 
known to Luke, it is probable that his acquaintance with the ex- 
pression in LXX is the explanation of his use of it. Ifthe expres- 
sion is also found in profane authors, the chances that medical 
training had anything to do with Lk.’s use of it become very 
remote. It is unreasonable to class as in any sense medical such 
words as d6potlew, dxoy, avaipety, avadapBavev, dvopfodv, amacreiv, 
umaAddocev, drove, aropeiv, aopddea, apeois, etc. etc. All of 
these are frequent in LXX, and some of them in profane authors. 
also. 

Nevertheless, when Dr. Hobart’s list has been well sifted, there 
still remains a considerable number of words, the occurrence or 
frequency of which in S. Luke’s writings may very possibly be due 
to the fact of his being a physician. ‘The argument is a cumulat- 
ive one. Any two or three instances of coincidence with medical 
writers may be explained as mere coincidences: but the large 
pumber of coincidences renders this explanation unsatisfactory for 


§6.] | CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE Ixv 


all of them ; especially where the word is either rare in LXX, or 
not found there at all. 

The instances given in the Gentleman's Magazine require a 
word of comment. Galen in treating of the diseases of the eye 
gives ayAvs as one of them, and repeatedly uses the word, which 
occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Perhaps xpauradAy, which 
in bibl. Grk. is found Lk. xxi. 34 only, is a similar instance. It 
occurs more than once in Aristophanes, but is frequent in medical 
‘vriters of the nausea which follows excess. In zapadeAvpévos we 
have a stronger instance. Whereas the other Evangelists use 
mapadutixos, Luke in harmony with medical usage has zapaAedv- 
pevos, as also has Aristotle, a physician’s son (Z7h. Vic. i. 13. 15). 
But this use may come from LXX, as in Heb. xii. 12. That aapo- 
évopos is a medical term is indisputable; but as early as Demos- 
thenes it is found in the sense of exasperation, as also in LXX 
‘Deut. xxix. 28 ; Jer. xxxix. [xxxii.] 37). The instance in Lk. iv. 38 
13 perhaps a double one: for cvvexopévy is possibly, and zuperd 
peyadAw probably, a medical expression. Moreover, here Mt. and 
Mk. have merely TUPET TOUT A, and in Acts xxviil. 8 we have the 
parallel ruperois xai ducevtepia ovvexopevov. In tdpwmrixds we have 
a word peculiar to Luke in bibl. Grk. and perhaps of purely 
medical origin. 

By adopting doubtful or erroneous aes Hobart makes other instances 
double, ¢.g. érémecev for érecev (Acts xiii. 11), BapyvOdouv for BapnOdow (Lk. 
xxi. 34). Again, whether or no avamriccew has any medical flavour, Lk. 


iv. 17 must not be quoted in connexion with it, for there the true reading is 
> 
avoléas. 


To the examples given in the Gentleman’s Magazine may per- 
haps be added such instances as daxtiAw rpoowavew (xi. 46), where 
Mt. has daktvAw Kwjoat: did Tpypatros BeAdvys (xvili. 25), Where Mk. 
has dua tTpvpadsas padidos: earn 7 plots TOD aiparos (vill. 44), Where 
Mk. has éénpdv0n 7 myyi tT. aiwatos: éotepedOyoav at Baces adrovd 
kal Ta ovodpa (Acts il. 7); and more doubtfully é60vnv técoapow 
dpxais kaenevov (Acts x. 11) and avexd@cev (vii. 14; Acts ix. 40). 

Luke alone relates what may be called the surgical miracle of 
the healing of Malchus’ ear (xxi. 51). And perhaps the marked 
way in which he distinguishes demoniacal possession from disease 
(vi. 18, xili. 32; Acts xix. 12) may be put down to medical train- 
ing. His exactness in stating how long the person healed had been 
afflicted (xili. 11 ; Acts ix. 33) and the age of the person healed 
(vill. 42; Acts iv. 22) is a feature of the same kind. For other 
possible instances see notes on iv. 35, V. 12, Vii. Io. 

The coincidences between the preface of the Gospel and the 
opening words of some medical treatises are remarkable (see small 
print, pp. 5, 6). And it is worth noting that Luke alone records 
Christ’s quotation of the proverb, “Iatpé, Oeparevoov ceavrov 

e 


Ixvi 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 


[§ 6 


(iv. 23); and that almost the last words that he records in the 
Acts are S. Paul’s quotation from Is. vi., which ends kai idcopar 


airovs (xxviii. 26, 27). 


The following table will illustrate some characteristics of S. 
Luke’s diction as compared with that of the other Synoptists :— 


S. MATTHEW. 


iii. 10. 457 dé. 

ili. 16. rvetua Geod. 

iii. 17. pwvh éx 7. ovp- 
wor. 


iv. 1. Gv}xOn. 
iv. 5, 8. maparapBdvet. 


iv. 12. dvexwpycer. 

iv. 18. Thy Oddaccapy. 

iv. 20. adpévres Ta Slxrva. 

viii. 2. Aempds mporehOwp 
tpocktve aire. 


Vili. 4. kal Aéyee 6 Inoois. 


ix. 2. mpocégepoy atre 
trapahurexéy. 
ix. 7. éyepOels, 


ix, 8. époBHOncar, 


ix. 9. Ma06atov Xeyouévor. 
xii, 50. 7d OAnua 7. war- 
$s ou. 
xiii. 7. éxt ras dxdvOas. 


xiii, 19. T Adyor 7. Ba- 
osdelas. 

xiii. 20. AapBdvwv, 

xili. 21. oxavdarlferas, 

v. 15. Kalovow dixvor. 

vill. 21. KUpte. 


viii. 30. dyé&\n xolpwr 
ToNAGr. 


ix. 18. l50) d&pxwv [els] 
cove Pav mpockiver aiTy. 


x. 18. éredetrycer, 


x. 14. Eepxdpeva EEw. 
avi. 15. Aéyets 


S. MARK. 


i. 10. 7d wvedpa. 

i, 11. gwyh éx 7. obpa- 
yu. 

i. 12. 7d zy. abrov éxBdd- 
Ae. 


i, 14. #AGer. 

i. 16. Thy Oddaccapy. 

i. 18. ddévres 7a Slxrva, 

i, 40. Nempds mapaxadav 
atrév Kal yovuTerar. 


i. 44. wal A\éyet, 


ii, 3. pépovres mpds abror 
mwapadurikdr. 
li. 12. 77yép8n Kal evdus. 


ii. 12, é&loracbat 


ii, 14. Aevely. 

iii, 35. 7d O&qya TF. 
Gcod. 

iv. 7. els Tas dxdvOas. 

iv. 14. rdv Adbyor. 
iv. 16, AapBdvovow. 
iv. 17. oxavdanlfovrat, 


iv. 38. d:ddoxade. 

v. 7. dpklfw ce. 

v. II. dy&q Xolpav pey- 
dd. 

v. 22. Epxerat eis Tv dp- 
xXiowayayw Kal alate 
apods Tods 76das avrov. 


¥. 23. éoxdrws Exel. 
v. 29. evOds eEnpdvOn 7 
vi. II. éxmopevdpevot éxet- 


Gev, 
Vili. 29, érnpwra. 


S. LuKgE. 
iii. 9. 4dn 5é nal, 
iii, 22. 7d wv. Td Bycor, 
iii. 22. @wv hy €& odpavod 
yevéo Oar 
iv. i. bréorpeper 


iv. 5, 9. Fyayer, ava 
yayav. 

iv. 14. bréorpeper. 

v. I. Thy Aluvny 

v. Il. agévres wWavTa. 

v. 12, dvip wdAhpns 
Admpas weoav él mpbe- 
wrov €6e407 avtov. 

v. 14. kal atrds rap 
hyyetrev. 

v. 18. dvdpes pépovres 
ee » TapadedAupévos. 

Vv. 25. TapaxpyHya ave 
aoras éveimiov altar. 

v. 26. €wAcOnoar pb- 
Bov. 
v. 27. 6véuare Acvelv, 

viii. 21. Tov Adyor 7. 
@cod. 

viii. 7. év wéow T. dkav- 
Oay. 
viii. 11.6 Ad6yosT. Oeod. 


SéxovTau 
adgloravran 
Avxvov &Was. 
éTLoTaTa. 
déopal cov. 
ayn xolpwr 


viii. 13. 

Viii. 13. 

viii. 16. 

viii. 24. 

viii. 28. 

viii. 32. 
tkavar. 

vili. 41. kal ldod 7dOev 
dvyp kal odros &pxwy Tis 
ouwaywyns um7pxev Kak 
meow Tape Tos wbdas 
"Inood. 

viii. 42. kal adrh daé- 
OvncKev. 

viii. 44. mWapaxpyjua 
orn F piots. 

ix. 5. éfepxduevar ard, 


ix. 20. efwrev 84 


§ 7.] 
S. MATTHEW. 
Xvi. 20. éwerlunoer, 
xvi. 28, duhv \éyw duiv. 


XVil. 4. KUpte. 
XVil. 16, mpoojveyka. 


xvii, 18, €OepamrevOn 4 
mais. 

xix. 13. masdla. 

xxii, 18. yvods Thy mov- 
nplav. 


XXVi. 20, pera T, OWdexa 
padnrov. 

Xxvi. 27. AaBwr. 

XXVi. 29. ov ph dm’ prt. 


XXvVi. 41. Ypryopetre kat 
mpocevxeobe. 

xxvi. 64. da dprt. 

XXVli. 2. dmijyayov Kat 
mapédwkay Ilewidry. 


xxvii. 13. Aéyet. 


XXVil. 57. dvOpwiros m\ov- 
clos, Tobvoua "Iwan. 


xxviii. 8. dreAOodoar... 
ESoapov damaryyethas ois 
uadyrais avroi. 


THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL 


S. MARK. 
vill, 30. éxerlunoer. 
ix. I. dpuhv A\éyw dyer. 
ix. 5. “PafBel, 


ix. 18. elza. 
ix. 27. avéorn. 


x. 13. matdla, 

xii. 15. eldws thy bré- 
Kpiowv. 

xiv. 17. weTa TOV SwdeKa, 
. 23. Aaa. 
Xiv. 25. ovxért od 11%}. 


- 38. ‘ypnyopetre xat 
mpooevxer Oe, 


xv. I. damrijveykay Kal 
mapédwxav Teddy. 


XV. 4. emnpora, 


XV. 43. "Iwonp evox nuwv 
Bovdeuris. 


xvi. 8. é&eAOotdoat « » » 
ovdevi ovdér elrav. 


Ixvii 
S. Luxe. 


ix. 21. émiryjoas wap- 
hyvetdrev. 

ix. 27. Aéyw byuiv ad7- 
Oas. 

ix.. 33. €miotdara, 

ix. 40. €deHOn». 

ix. 42. ldoaro 
waitda, 

xviii. 15. Ta Bpédn. 

XX. 23. KaTavOyoas THY 
mwavoupylav. 

xxil. 14. of drédoToAot 
ovr atte. 

xxii. 17. deEdwevos. 

xxii, 18. ob uh dad Tod 
vor. 

xxii. 46. dvacrdyres 
mpocevxeobe, 

xxii, 69. dd Tod viv. 

xxiii. I. dvacrTav érav 
TO TARGOS atrav #yayor 
avrov éml r. TlecdGrov. 

xxiii. 9. eanpdéra ev é- 
yous ikavots. 

xxii. 50. kat ldod avnp 
évéuatet I.,  Bovdeurys 
Umdpxwr. 

Xxiv. 9. JrocrpéVacat 
oe. GTHYyElAay TavTa 
mdvra Tos evdexa Kal 
@ Gov Tots Aovrots. 


Top 


These are only specimens taken from a large number of 


instances, and selected for their brevity and 
they admit of comparison. 


the ease with which 


The student who has mastered tne 


main features of Luke’s style will be able to find many more for 


himself. 


§ 7. THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 


This question may be regarded as naturally following the dis- 


cussion of S. Luke’s peculiarities and characteristics, for it is by a 
knowledge of these that we are able to solve it. The question has 
been keenly debated during the last forty years, and may now be 
said to be settled, mainly through the exertions of Volkmar, 
Hilgenfeld; and Sanday. Dr. Sanday’s,article in the Fortnightly 
Review, June 1875, in answer to Supernatural Religion, was pro- 
nounced by Bishop Lightfoot to be ‘“‘able and (as it seems to me) 
unanswerable” (On Sup. Fel. p. 186). This article was incor- 


Ixviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [§ 7. 


perated in Zhe Gospels in the Second Century, Macmillan, 1896, 
now unfortunately out of print, and it remains unanswered. It is 
now conceded on all sides' that Marcion’s Gospel does not 
represent the original S. Luke, and that our Third Gospel has 
not been largely augmented and interpolated, especially by the 
addition of the first three chapters and the last seven verses ; but 
that Marcion’s Gospel is an abridgment of our S. Luke, which 
therefore was current before Marcion began to teach in Rome in 
or before a.D. 140. The statements of early Christian writers (not 
to be accepted as conclusive without examination) have been 
strongly confirmed, and it is right to speak of Marcion’s Gospel as 
a “mutilated” or “ amputated ”’ edition of S. Luke. 


Trenzeus says of Marcion: zd guod est secundum Lucam evangelium 
circumcidens (i. 27. 2, iil. 12.7); and again: Marcion et gui ab co sunt, ad 
intercidendas converst sunt Scripturas, quasdam quidem in totum non cog- 
noscentes, secundum Lucam autem evangelium et epistolas Pauli decurtantes, 
hec sola legitima esse dicunt, que ipst minoraverunt (iil. 12.12). Similarly 
Tertullian: Qzzs tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit? 
(Adv. Marcion. i. 1). Marcion evangelio suo nullum adscribit auctorem. 
... ex tis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse 
quem cederet (ibid. iv.2). Epiphanius also: 6 wév yap xapaxryp Tov Kara AouKay 
onualver 76 evayyéduov: ws 6 AKpwrnplacTrar TE GpXHy EXwWY, MITE “eo, UATE 
Tédos, tuatlov BeBpwuévou vrd wodAdGy onT Gy éréxe Tov Tpbrov (Her. i. 3. II, 
Migne, xli. 709). Epiphanius speaks of additions, 7a d€ rpoorl@ynouv: but these 
were very trifling, perhaps only some two or three dozen words. 


The evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius as to the contents 
of Marcion’s Gospel is quite independent, and it can be checked 
to some extent by that of Irenzeus. ‘Their agreement is remark- 
able, and we can determine with something like certainty and 
exactness the parts of the Third Gospel which Marcion omitted ; 
not at all because he doubted their authenticity, but because he 
disliked their contents. They contradicted his doctrine, or did 
not harmonize well with it, or in some other way displeased him. 
In this arbitrary manner he discarded i. ii. and ili. excepting Iii. 1, 
with which his Gospel began. Omitting ili. 2-iv: 13, 17-20, 24, 
he went on continuously to xi. 28. _ His subsequent omissions 
were xi. 29-32, 49-51, xiil. I-9, 29-35, XV. LI—32, XVll. 5—I0, 
XVili. 31-34, xix. 29-48, xx. 9-18, 37, 38, xxl. I-4, 18, 21, 22, 
xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51, xxlv. 47-53. Perhaps he also 
omitted vii. 29-35 ; and he transposed iv. 27 to xvii. 18. 

It should be observed that not only does Marcion’s Gospel 


1 An exception must be made of the author of Zhe Four Gospels as 
Historical Records, Norgate, 1895, pp. 93-95. The work is retrograde, and 
rakes together criticisms and ‘positions which have been rendered impotent and 
untenable. One is tempted to apply to it the author’s own words (respecting a 
volume of very real merit and ability, which has rendered signal service to the 
cause of truth), that it “may be said, without much injustice, to beg every 
question with which it deals” (p. 491). 


§ 7.] THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL Ixix 


contain nearly all the sections which are peculiar to Luke, but it 
contains them in the same order. Where Luke inserts something 
into the common tradition, Marcion has the insertion ; where Luke 
omits, Marcion omits also. This applies in particular to “the 
great intercalation” (ix. 51—xvili. 14) as well as to smaller 
insertions; and this minute agreement, step by step, between 
Marcion and Luke renders the hypothesis of their independence 
incredible. The only possible alternatives are that Marcion has 
expurgated our Third Gospel, or that our Third Gospel is an 
expansion of Marcion’s; and it can be demonstrated that the 
second of these is untenable. 

(1) In most cases we can see why Marcion omitted what his 
Gospel did not contain. He denied Christ’s human birth; 
therefore the whole narrative of the Nativity and the genealogy 
must be struck out. The Baptism, Temptation, and Ascension 
involved anthropomorphic views which he would dislike. All 
allusions to the O.T. as savouring of the kingdom of the Demiurge 
must be struck out. And so on. In this way most of the 
omissions are quite intelligible. The announcement of the 
Passion (xviii. 31-34) and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, ete. 
(xix. 29-48), were probably disliked as being fulfilments of O.T-. 
prophecy. It 1s less easy to see Marcion’s objection to the 
Prodigal Son (xv. 11-32) and the massacre of Galileans, etc. 
(xiii. 1-9) ; but our knowledge of his strange tenets is imperfect, 
and these passages probably conflicted with some of them. But 
sach changes as “‘all the righteous” for “ Abraham and Isaac and 
Jacob and ali te prophets” (xiii. 28), or “the Lord’s words” for 
“the law” (xvi. 17), or “those whom the god of that world shall 
account worthy” for “they that are accounted worthy to attain to 
that world” (xx. 35), are thoroughly intelligible. Others which his 
critics supposed to be wilful depravations of the text are mere 
differences of reading found in other authorities ; e.g. the omission 
of aidvov (x. 25) and of 7 pepioryy (xii. 14) ; and the insertion of 
kal kaTadvovta Tov vomov Kal TOvs mpopyTas (Xxili. 2). 

(2) But the chief evidence (in itself amounting to something 
like demonstration) that Marcion abridged our S. Luke, rather 
than the Evangelist expanded Marcion, is found in the peculiari: zs 
and characteristics of Luke’s style and diction. These run through 
our Gospel from end to end, and on the average are as frequent in 
the portions which Marcion omitted as in the rest. In the first 
two chapters they are perhaps somewhat more frequent than else- 
where. It is quite incredible that the supposed interpolator made 
a minute analysis of the style and diction of Marcion’s Gospel, 
practised himself in it, and then added those portions of our 
Gospel which Marcion did not include in his Gospel: and that he 
accomplished this feat without raising a suspicion. Such a feat in 


Ixx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 8. 


that age would have been a literary miracle. Only those who 
have worked through the passages expunged by Marcion, carefully 
marking what is peculiar to Luke or characteristic of him, can 
estimate the full force of this argument. But the analysis of a few 
verses will be instructive. 

The dotted lines indicate that the expression is found more 
often in Luke’s writings than in the rest of N.T., and the fraction 
indicates the proportion: eg. the § with xa6eiAev means that 
kaGaipety occurs six times in Lk. and Acts, and three elsewhere in 
the rest of N.T. The plain lines indicate that the expression is 
peculiar to Luke in N.T., and the figure states the number of 
times in which it occurs in his writings: e.g. xara 76 €80s occurs 
thrice in Lk. and Acts, and nowhere else in N.T. 


eee nw ewencnsees Pe , 
evérhyoev 2" ayaddv, kat rhovrotrtas eLarréoretAcv 19 Kevovs. davte\d- 


iréotpaper 38 cis Tov otxov abris (i. 52-56). oa 


ee I 
éoptj Tod mdoxa, Kal Gre eyévero érdvZ$ dwoexa, dvaBawdvTwv 
RN ere Slee co steay : 


a a 4, ‘5 ¢ 
aitav «ata TO e0s3 THs éopTns, Kal TehewodvTwy Tas Hmepas, 


Trois 2 yvworois' 42 Kal pa evpovtes tréotpeav %3 eis “IepovoaAnp, 


§ 8. THE TEXT, 


The authorities quoted for the various readings are taken from 
different sources, of which Tischendorf’s /Vov. Zest. Gree. vol. i. 
ed. 8, Lipsiz, 1869, and Sanday’s App. ad Wov. Test, Sieph., 
Oxonii, 1889, are the chief. The Patristic evidence has been in 
many cases verified. Gregory’s /rolgomena to ‘Tischendorf, 
Lipsiz, 1884-94, and Miller’s edition of Scrivener’s /utroduction 
to the Criticism of N.T., Bell, 1894, must be consulted by_ those 
who desire more complete information respecting the authorities. 


+ 


§ 8] THE TEXT Ixxi 


(1) GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. 
Primary uncials. 


& Cod. Sinaiticus, sec. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the 
Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Peters- 
burg. Contains the whole Gospel complete. 

Its correctors are 
x* contemporary, or nezriy so, and representing a second 
MS. of high value ; 
x” attributed by Tischendorf to sxc. vi. ; 
&° attributed to the beginning of sec. vii. Two hands of 
about this date are sometimes distinguished as »@ and 
Roe. 

A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sec. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library 
at Alexandria ; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. 
in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete. 

B. Cod. Vaticanus, sec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly 
since 1533! (Batiffol, Za Vaticane de Paul itt, etc., p. 86). 
Complete. 

The corrector B? is nearly of the same date and used a 
good copy, though not quite so good as the original. 
Some six centuries later the faded characters were 
retraced, and a few new readings introduced by B?. 

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, seec. v. In the National Library 
at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 
i. 2-ii. 5, ii. 42-ili. 21, iv. 25-vi. 4, vi. 37-vii. 16 or 17, 
Vili. 28-xii. 3, xix. 42—-XX. 27, Xxi. 2I-xxil. 19, xxiii, 25- 
xxiv. 7, xxiv. 46-53. 

These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, 
and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX 
and N.T. 

D. Cod. Bezae, sec. vi. Given by Beza to the University 
Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains 
the whole Gospel. 

L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sec. viii. National Library at Paris. 
Contains the whole Gospel. 

R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sec. viii. Brought from a convent 
in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British 
Museum. Contains i. 1-13, i. 69-11. 4, 16-27, iv. 38-v. 5, 
V. 25-vi. 8, 18-36, 39, Vi. 49-Vil. 22, 44, 46, 47, Vill. 5-15, 
Viii. 25-ix. T, 12-43, X . 3-16, xi. 5727, XU. 4-15, 40-52, 
xiii. 26-xiv. I, xiv. 12—-xv. I, xv. 13-Xvi. 16, XVii. 21—Xxvili. 10, 
xviii. 22—XX. 20, XX. 33-47, XXL. I2-xxii. 15, 42-56, xxii. 71- 
wail. 11, 38-51. By a second hand xv. 19-21. 

T. Cod. Borgianus, sxc. vy. In the Library of the Propaganda at 
Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains xxii. 20-xxiii. 20, 


Ixxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 8. 


X. Cod. Monacensis, sec. ix. In the University Library at 
Munich. Contains i. 1-37, ii. 19-iii. 38, iv. 21-x. 37, 
xi. I-XVili. 43, XxX. 46—-xxiv. 53. 

A. Cod. Sangallensis, seec. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in 
Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole 
Gospel. 

=. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, szec. viii. In the Library of the 
Brit. and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains i. 1-9, 
19-23, 27; 28, SJE 36-66, 1. 77-ii. 19, 21, 22, 33-39) 
iii. 5-8, 11-20, iv. 1, 2, 6-20, 32-43, v. 17-36, vi. 21- 
vii. 6, 11-37, 39-47, Vili: 4-21, 25-35, 43-50, ix. 1-28, 
32, 33) 35, ix. 41-x. 18, 21-40, xi, I; 4; § 4) 24-30, 31, 32; 


33: 

If these uncials were placed in order of merit for the textual 
criticism of the Gospel, we should have as facile princeps B, with 
® as equally easily second. Then T, 2, L, C, R. The Western 
element which sometimes disturbs the text of B is almost entirely 
absent from the Gospels. 


Secondary Uncials, 


E. Cod. Basileensis, sec. viii. In the Public Library at Basle. Contains 
the whole Gospel, except iii. 4-15 and xxiv. 47-53. 

F. Cod. Boreeli, sec. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains 
considerable portions of the Gospel. 

G. Cod. Harleianus, sec. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable 
ortions. 

K. Cod. Cyprius, sec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the 
whole Gospel. 

M. Cod. Campianus, sec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains 
the whole Gospel. 

S. Cod. Vaticanus, sec, x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the 
Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel. 

U. Cod. Nanianus, sec. x. In the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice. Contains 
the whole Gospel. 

Only six uncials MSS., SBK MSU, afford complete copies of all four 
Gospels. 


(2) VERSIONS, 


The Versions quoted are the following: 
The Latin (Lat.). 
The Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet} 
The Vulgate (Vulg.). 
The Egyptian (Aegyptt.). 
The Bohairic (Boh.), 
The Sahidic (Sah.). 
The Syriac (Syrr.). 
The Curetonian (Cur.) 
The Sinaitic (Sin.). 
The Peshitto (Pesh.). 


§ 9.) LITERARY HISTORY bodii 


The Harclean (Harcl.). 
The Palestinian (Hier.). 
The Armenian (Arm.), 
The Ethiopic (Aeth.). 
The Gothic (Goth.), 


We are not yet in a position to determine the relation of the 
recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac (Syr-Sin.) to the other Syriac 
Versions and to other representatives of primitive texts: and it 
would be rash for one who is ignorant of Syriac to attempt a 
solution of this problem. But the readings of Syr-Sin., as given 
in the translation by Mrs. Lewis, are frequently quoted in the 
notes, so that the reader may judge to what extent they support 
the text adopted in this commentary. 

It should be noticed that four of the seven instances of Con- 
fiate Readings, cited by WH. (ii. pp. 99-104) as proof of the 
comparative lateness of the traditional text, are found in this 
Gospel (ix. 10, xi. 54, xii. 18, xxiv. 23). Mr. Miller, in his new 
edition of Scrivener’s Jutroduction to the Criticism of the N.T. 
(Bell, 1894), denies the cogency of the proof; but the only case 
with which he attempts to deal, and that inadequately (ii. pp. 292, 
293), is Lk. xxiv. 53. See the Classical Review, June 1896, p. 264. 


§9. LITERARY HISTORY. 


It is not easy to determine where the literary history of the 
Third Gospel begins. The existence of the oral tradition side by 
side with it during the first century of its existence, and the 
existence of many other documents (i. 1) previous to it, which 
may have resembled it, or portions of it, very closely, are facts 
which render certainty impossible as to quotations which bear 
considerable resemblance to our Gospel. They may come from 
this Gospel; but they may also have another source. Again, 
there are possibilities or probabilities which have to be taken into 
account. We do not know how soon Harmonies of two, or three, 
or four Gospels were constructed. The Third Gospel itself is a 
combination of documents; and there is nothing improbable in 
the supposition that before Tatian constructed his Diatessaron 
others had made combinations of Matthew and Luke, or of all 
three Synoptic Gospels (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 302). 
Some early quotations of the Gospel narrative look as if they 
may have come either from material which the Evangelists used, 
or from a compound of their works, rather than from any one of 
them as they have come down to us. On the other hand the 
difficulty of exact quotation must be remembered. MSS. were 


xxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 9. 
not abundant, and even those who possessed them found a diffi 
culty in “verifying their references,” when rolls were used and 
not pages, and when neither verses nor even chapters were num- 
bered or divided. In quoting from memory similar passages of 
different Gospels would easily become mixed ; all the more so, if 
the writers who quote were in the habit of giving oral instruction 
in the Gospel narrative ; for in giving such instruction they would 
be in the habit of constructing a compound text out of the words 
which they chanced to remember from any two or three Gospels. 
What they wanted to convey was the substance of “the Gospel,” 
and not the exact wording of the Gospel according to Matthew, or 
Mark, or Luke. 

There is nothing in the Epistle of Barnabas which warrants us 
in believing that the writer knew the Third Gospel : and the co- 
incidence of Kowwvyces év racw TO TAnTIoV Gov, Kal OK épets 
i8ua elvae (xix. 8) with Acts iv. 32 is too slight to be relied upon. 
Comp. Didaché iv. 8. Indeed it is not impossible that this 
Epistle was written before our Gospel (a.D. 70-80). In the 
Epistle of Clement, which doubtless is later than the Gospel 


(A.D. 95, 96), we have the perplexing phenomena alluded to 


above. 


MT. v, 7, Vil. 1, 2 


pakdpres of édehwoves, 
ore abrot &denOjoovrat, 


uh Kplvere, ta ph 
kptOjre® év @ yap Kplua- 
Tt Kplvere xpiOjoecBe, 
kal év @ pérpw perpetre 


Crem. Rom. Cor, xiii. 2, 


otrws yap elrev’ éde- 
Gre, iva éhenOjre: adlere, 
ta dgeOg dutv* ws mot- 
etre, odTw mornOijocerat 
buivy ws Oldore, obrws 
Sobjoerae byivs ws xpl- 
vere, obrws xpiOjaec be" 
os xpnoreverde, obrws 
XpnorevOjoerat byiv* @ 


Lx, vi. 36-38 


+lvecbe olxrippoves Kab- 
os Tmarhp vpav olK- 
tipuwv éorly' kat ph 
kplvere, kal ov wh KpiO7jre* 
kal ph kaTadixdgere, kat 
ob} ph KaradikacO7re, 
dmodvere, Kal dodu- 
O@jcecbe* Sldore, Kal do- 


werpnOhoeras duiv. perp pepe: é&v alte Ofoerartpiv. .. @ yap 
perpnOioerar duty. pérpy petpetre dvTimerpy- 
Ojoeras [or peTpnOjoerat] 

byir. 


This quotation is found in the Epistle of Polycarp (ii. 3) i in 
this form : pynpovedovres 8 & dv elev 6 _icbptos Sddoxwv" HN Kpivere, 
iva ft) Kpubijre® adiere, kat apeOjorat byiv’ édeGre, va éhenOjre’ o 
HeTpw peTpette, avTyerpyOnoerat dpiv. And Clement of Alexandria 
(Strom. il. 18, p. 476, ed. Potter) has it exactly as Clement of 
Rome, with the exception of dvrierpyOycerar for petpyOycerat: 
but he is perhaps quoting his namesake. If not, then the 
probability that both are quoting a source different from any of 
our Gospels becomes much greater (Resch, Agrapha, pp. 96, 
97). 


\ 


§9.] 
MrT. xviii. 6,7, xxvi. 24. 


és 8 ay cxavdarloy eva 
TOV pukpOv TOUTWY, TOY 
miorevovrwy els gud, cup- 
géper air@ Wa Kxpeyacdn 
poidros dvixds mepl tpd- 
xnrov avrov Kal Kara- 
mwovriaOn év TH Tedder 
Ths Oaddoons. oval TE 
Koop. . » » 

oval d& rye dvOpwry 
éxelvy dv o5 6 vids Tov 


LITERARY HISTORY 


Cem. Rom. Cor. xlvi. 8. 


elrey ydp* oval Tp 
avOpamp éxelvp* Kaddv 
hv atre@ el ovx éyevv On, 
h éva trav éxdexTGv prov 
oxavdadloa* Kpetrrov hy 
avria mepireOqvar pido 
kal KaramovrigOjvar els 
Thy Oddaccav, h Eva Tov 
éx\exT@v gov diaoTpéyat. 


boxy 


LK. xvii, 1, 2, xxii. 22. 


dyéviexrby éorw Toi 
7a oxdviara ph Oe, 
Any oval du’ od Epxerat* 
Avotrede? atr@ el AlBos 
Pudxds meplkerrae rept 
Tov Tpdxnrov atrovd Kat 
Eppirras els Thy Oddaccar, 
h wa oKxavdartlog trav 
paxpov TovTwy Eva. 

odalr@ dvOpary éxelvp 
8’ ob xapadldoras, 


avOpwrov mapadldoorar® 
Kandy qv atr@ el ove 
éyevv}0n &  AvOpwros 
éketvos. 


Here again Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iii. 18, p. 561) 
quotes exactly as Clement of Rome, with the exception of 7 for 
ovx after «i, and the omission of tyv before GaAdocav. In Clem. 
Rom. Cor. lix. 3 we have a composite quotation (Is. xiii. 11; Ps. 
xxiii, 10; Job v. 11, etc.), which may possibly have been in- 
fluenced by Lk. i. 52, 53, xiv. 11, xviii. 14; but nothing can be 
built on this possibility. We must be content to leave it doubtful 
whether Clement of Rome knew our Gospel according to Luke; 
and the same must be said of Polycarp (see above) and of Ignatius. 
In Zph. xiv. we have gavepov 76 Sévdpov ard Tod Kaprov airod, 
which recalls ék yap rod kaprov 76 Sévdpov ywwdoxerat (Mt. xii. 33) 
and éxacrov yap Sévdpov éx Tod idiov Kaprod ywdaKerar a vi. 44). 
Smyr. iii. we have the very remarkable passage which perplexed 
Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome as to its source: 6re mpéds Tovs zept 
Ilérpov 7AOev, epy airois’ AdBere, pyrapyoaré pe, kal dere Ste ovK 
eit Sausdviov dowpatov. This may be a condensation of Lk. 
xxiv. 36-39, or may come from oral tradition or a lost document. 
Of other possibilities, 76 wip 7d doBeorov (Eph. xvi.) recalls Mk. 
ix. 43 rather than Lk. ili. 17: xadots padyras cay PirAqs, xdpts oor 
ovx éorw (Folyc. ii.) is not very close to Lk. vi. 32: jdovat tod 
Biov (Rom. vii.) is found Lk. viii. 14, but is a common phrase: 
and other slight resemblances (e.g. J/agn. x.) may as easily come 
from other Gospels or from tradition. 

We are on surer ground when we come to the Didaché and 
the Gospel of Peter, the dates of which remain to be determined, 
but which may be placed between a.p. 75 and 125. In the former 
we find further evidence of a combination of passages from 
Matthew and Luke, of which we have seen traces in Clement of 
Rome, and which suggests the possibility of a primitive Harmony 
of these two documents. 


( 


bexvi 


MT. xxv. 13 


‘vervopeire ods, 


rt ote §«6oldare 


Th 
quépav ode rhv Spay. 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 


DIDAcHE xvi. 1. 


‘yprryopetre dxtp ris 
fons tudvs of dAdyvoe 
tuav ph cBecPjowoar, 
kal al dodves Suv ph 
éxdvécOwoav, GAA yev- 
ea0e Erotpor® ov yap oldare 
Thy Gpav év @ 6 Kuptos 
hua Epxerat. 


Ise 
LK. xii. 35. 


Ecrucay bpGr al dopves 
meprefwopévas Kat ol AVX- 
vot Kathuevot, Kal vpets 
Suoroe avOpwras mpoc- 
Sexouévors Tov Kuptoy 
éaurar. 


Here the acquaintance with our Gospel is highly probable, for 
of the Evangelists Luke alone has the plural of Avyvos and of 


éodus. 


In giving the substance of the Sermon on the Mount, the 


Didaché again seems to compound the two Gospels. 


MT, vil, Vv. 


8gdyra oby Soa ear 
Ogre va woidow dpiv 
ol dvOpwra, ottws Kal 
bpets rovetre avrois. 

4 dyamare Tods éxOpods 
buav Kal mpocevxerbe 
wxep Toy SiwwKdvTwy das. 

dav yap ayamrjonte 
To’s ayaTavras wvpas, 
tiva pacOdv ExeTE;.. 
a7... otxt Kal ob 
€Ovixol 7d atrd Totovaty ; 


® Soris oe pamlte els 
Thy Setiav odyova, oTpé- 
yr atr@ kal Thy &dAdAnv. 

Boris ge dyyapeioe 
puoy &y, Braye per’ 
avrov dv0. 7G Gedovtl 
cot KpOjvas Kal Tov xI- 
Travd gov aBeiv, aes 
aire xal 7d ludriov. 
© + alrobytl ce dbs, Kat 
roy Oé\ovTa dd cov da- 
vlcacbat uh dmooTpagpys. 


DipacuHe i. 2-5. 


wdvra 5¢ Soa dv Oed- 
hons wh ylvec@al cot, Kat 
od) Gd\Aw ph mole... 
ev\oyeire Tos KkKaTapw- 
pévous duty Kal mpoced- 
xecbe brép Tav éxOpav 
dua, vnorevere 5 vrép 
TOV SiwkdovTwv bpas* ola 
yap xdpis, dav ayarare 
Tos dayamavras vps; 
ovxt Kal Ta EOvn 7d adrd 
To.ovow ; vets dé dya- 
Ware TOUS pucovvTas buas 
Kal obx eere ExOpiv... 
édy Tis gor O@ pdmiopa els 
Ti Sekidv ovarydva, orpéy* 
atr@ kal Thy GdAnv, Kak 
&rn rédetos* ey ayya- 
peton oé€ tis puldrov ev, 
Umarye wer’ avrov dvo* day 
G&py tis Td tudridy cov, 
dds adr@ Kal rdv xiTGva" 
éav AdBy Tis dd cov 7d 
abv, ph daralre ovdé 
yap Stvaca. mavtl TO 
alrobytl ce dldov, kal ph 
dmalret. 


Lx, vi, 


81 Kas Oédere Iva wot- 
Gow byiv of &vOpwrot, 
moveire abrois dpolws. 

8 ed\oyeire Tovs KaTa- 
pwpuévous buds, mpocev- 
xecbe wept Trav émnpea- 


Cévrwv tpas. 7 ada 
dyanGre ods éxOpods 
Uuav. 


32 kal el d-yamare Tos 
dyaravras duds, ola 
duly xdpts dorly ; Kal yap 
of duaprwrol rods d-ya- 
movras avrovs dyamraouw. 

35 hiv dyarare Tovs 
éx9pods duaGy ... Kal 
écrar 6 = yuoOds = bpaov 
onus. 

27@ TUmTovTl ce éml 
Thy ovaybva mapexe Kal 
Thy dddAnv, 

kal dard rou alpovrés cou 
76 ludriov Kal Tov xiTGva 
Bh Kwdvoys. ™ ravri al- 
rouvrl ce dldov, Kal dard 
tov alpovrés Ta oh ph 
dmalret. 


Expressions which are peculiar to each form of the Sermon 
are here so abundant that we conclude that this doctrine of the_ 


Two Ways has been influenced by both forms. 


But the order in 


which the several precepts are put together is so different from 
both Gospels, that the editor can scarcely have had either Gospel 
before him. Very possibly the order and wording have been 
disturbed by oral instruction in Christian morality given to cate- 
chumens (Sanday, Bamptons, p. 302). But the evidence of 


§ 9.] LITERARY HISTORY Ixxvii 
acquaintance with the Third Gospel is strong ; and it is somewhat 
strengthened by the fact that in the Dzdaché Christ is called the 
“Servant (ats) of God” (ix. 2, 3, x. 2, 3), a use of wats which in 
N.T. is almost confined to Luke (Acts ill, 11.34) 26, Ive 27," 30); 
comp. iv. 23; Lk. i. 54, 69). But this use is common in LXX, 
and may easily be derived from Isaiah or the Psalms rather than 
from the Acts. Nevertheless there is other evidence of the in- 
fluence of the Acts on the Didaché, and scarcely any evidence of 
the influence of Isaiah or of the Psalms: indeed the references to 
the O.T. are remarkably few. And this not only makes it quite 
possible that the use of 6 zais cov comes from the Acts, but also 
still further strengthens the conviction that the Dzdaché is in- 
debted to the writings | of S. Luke. Comp. gvyKowovynoes O€ 
mdyra TO depos gov Kal ovk épeis ida elva (Did. IV. 8) with ovdé 
eis TL TOV brapxovrwv aitd eeyey idiov elvor, GAN jv avrois ravTa 
kowa (Acts iv. 32). Bryennios and Wiinsche see traces of Lk. 
ix. 1-6 and x. 4-21 in Lid. xi.; but this chapter might easily have 
stood as it does if Luke had never written. Yet there is enough 
in what has been quoted above to establish the fact of the influence 
of Luke on the Didaché. 

It is generally admitted that the fragment of the Gosfe/ of 
eter suffices to show that the writer of that apocryphal narrative 
was acquainted with all four of the Canonical Gospels. But it 
will be worth while to quote some of the expressions and state- 
ments which have a marked resemblance to Luke in particular. 


GOSPEL OF PETER, LK, xxiii., xxive 


@ edaros réuwas mpods ‘Hpwdnr. 7. IewGros , » » avéreupev abrdov 
mpos ‘Hpwdnv. 

54. Kal cdBBarov érépwoxer. 

32. Hyovro 6é Kal Erepa KaKxodpyo 
Svo. 


§. xal cdBBarov émipwoxet. 
10. #veyKov Svo Kkakovpyous. 


13. els 6é Ts TOV Kakovpywy éxelvwr 
aveldicev atrous, Aéywv" tueis Sud Td 
kaka & éroujoapev olTw memdvOapuer, 
ovTos 6¢ owrhp yevouevos TGV avOpwTwv 
rl nolknoev Has ; 

15. 6 HAvos du. 

28. 6 dads Amas yoyyute Kal xéz- 
TeTat TA OTHON. 

34. mpwlas dé émipwoxorros Tod caB- 
Barov. 

36. dvo dvdpas KareNObvras éxetOev 
FOND dévyyos eXovras. 

(50. SpOpov oe THs Kupiakfis . . . em 
TP wvhpari. 

54. & pépomer els uynuocuvny atrod, 


39. els 6¢ TGv KpeuacbévTwy Kaxovp- 
youv epraopruet avréy. . . 

41. d&ia yap ov émpdtapev drohap- 
Bavopev* odros dé ovdév dromov érpaker. 


45. Tov Alou éxelmrovTos. 
48. mdvres ol cuvmapayevopuevor 5x Aor 
2» « TUMTOVTES TA OTHON. 


54. kal odBBarov érépwoxev. 


4. vdpes Sto éxécrncay atrais év 
écOnri dorparTovcy. 

I. TH O¢ pug Tov caBBdrwv BpOpov 
Babéws ert 7d pvtua 7FAGav Pépovon 
4 7jrolpacay dpwpyara. 


These resemblances, which are too close and too numerous to 
be accidental, are further emphasized when the parallel narratives 


lxxviii © THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [s 9. 


are compared. S. Luke alone mentions the sending to Herod. 
He alone uses the expression ca@arov erépwokey (contrast Mt. 
xxviii. 1). He alone calls the two robbers xaxodpyo.. He alone 
tells us that ove of the robbers reviled, and that one contrasted 
the justice of their fate with the innocence of Jesus. He alone 
mentions the sun in connexion with the darkness. He alone 
speaks of a// the multitudes of spectators, and of their beating 
their breasts. He alone calls the two Angels at the tomb avdpes 
(Mt. and Mk. mention only one), and calls the tomb pvjya; and 
he alone uses ¢épew of the women bringing the spices. There are 
other passages in which the Gosfel of Peter resembles Luke with 
one or more of the other Gospels; but what has been quoted 
above is sufficient to show that the writer of the apocryphal gospel 
was influenced by S. Luke’s narrative. It must be remembered 
that these ten coincidences are found within the compass of fifty- 
five verses, and that they are not exhaustive. The inscription on 
the cross, otrés €or 6 BaciAcis Tod “IopayaA (11), is closer to that 
given by S. Luke, 6 B. ray "Iovdaiwy otros (xxiii. 38), than to any 
of the other forms ; and perhaps the words of the robber, cwryp 
yevopevos (see above, 13), are suggested by cScov ceavTov Kal Has 
(xxili. 39). The use of peony fpia for “midday” (15) is found 
in N.T. nowhere but Acts xxii. 6. The cry of the Jews after 
Christ’s death, tere ore wocov Sikatds éorw (28), looks like an 
adaptation of the centurion’s confession, évTws 6 dv6purros ovTos 
dikavos Hv (xxiii. 47); and perhaps ee jaar mdvra. dep eldov (45) 
is an echo of efyyovvTo Ta ey TH 600 (xxiv. 35)- And, as already 
pointed out (§ 1), Pseudo-Peter always speaks of Jesus Christ 
as 6 KUptos, a use which begins to be common in the Third 
Gospel. 

The evidence of another interesting document of about the 
same date is worth quoting. The Zestaments of the XII. Patri- 
archs is a Jewish Christian writing which almost certainly was 
composed between the two destructions of Jerusalem, A.D. 70 and 
135. It shows marked traces of a knowledge of the Synoptic 
traditions and of S. Luke’s Gospel in particular. Some of the 
coincidences given below are probably the result of independent 
citation of the O.T. But the citation may have been suggested 
to the later writer by acquaintance with it in the Gospel narrative. 


Test. XII. PATR. S. LUKE. 
otvoy xal olxepa ov Extov (Reubeni.). olvov kal cikepa ob ph aly (i. 153 
Num. vi. 3). 
Eyrr Bre Stxalws rdoxw (Sim. iv.). kal jets wev dixalws Gar 41). 
EcecOe evpicxovres xdpw évuwrioy "Inoods mpoéxomrev . . . XdpiTt mapa 


Be08 xat dvOpwixwv (Sim. v.). 04 Kal dvOpdmros (ii. 523 1 Sam. 
ii. 26). 


§ 9.) LITERARY 
6 chs cua AaBav Kal cuvecOlwy 
avOpwrors Ecwoev avrovs (Sim. vi.) 


dvedxOncav of ovpavol (Levi ii., 
xviii. ). 

mepl Tob wéANovTos AuTpodcOar Tov 
‘Topa7yd (Lbzd.). 

ws émickéynrat Kipios mévra Td 
Fyn & omddyxvos viod atrod Ews 
aldvos (Levi iv.). 

cuverjpouy Tods Adyous ToUTous ev TH 
xapola pou (Levi vi.). “ 

kalye éxpuya Totro év Ty Kapdla pov, 
kal ovK dv7yyye\a attd mavTl ay- 
Oper (Levi viii.). 

dvvapus ‘Tylorov (Levi xvi.). 

érémecev éx’ atrovds Tpouds (Judah 
iii. ). 

moet TayvrTa Ta Oikarmpata Kuplov cat 
trakovew évtddas Geod (Judah xiii.). 

dvovynoovrat ém’ avrdy ol ovpavol, 
éxxéat mvedua, evAoylav Ilarpés aylov 
(Judah xxiv.). 

of év mrwyxela did Kipiov mdouric- 
Ojoovrat, Kal of év meng xopracby- 
govTa, Kal of év dobeveig loxvcover 
(Judah xxv.). 

émioTpéver Kapdlas 
Kvprov (Dan v.). 


dmeGeis + mpds 


kal édy duoroyjoas petavojcy Ades 
atr@ (Gad vi.). 

kal airés A\Oay ws &vOpwiros, éo8iwv 
kal xlywy pera TOv avOpwHmwv (Asher 
vii.). See above, Sim. vi. 


HISTORY xxix 

auvecOle abrots (xv. 2) comp. cuve- 
payouevy xal ouverloyev aitm (Acts 
x. 41). 

dvewx Siva. Tov ovpavéy (ili, 21; Is. 
Ixiv. 1). 

atrbs éoriwv 6 wé\Nwr AuTpovcGat Tov 
"Iopand (xxiv. 21). 

Oia omddyxva éddouvs Beod judy év 
ols émicxéperas Nuas avarody &€ tous 
(i. 78). 

cuvernper TA pyuata Tatra... ey 
TQ Kapolg atrfs (ii. 19; comp. ii. 51). 

kal atrol éclynoay kal ovdevl am7y- 
yerlav év éxelvats tais juépas ay 
éwpaxay (ix. 36). 

dvvapus “LWlorov (i. 35). 

poBos érérecev ém’ airéy (i. 12; 
comp. Acts xix. 17). 

mopevouevoe év wdcats Tats évTodais 
kal dixarmuacw Tod Kuplov (i. 6). 

dvewxOjvac Tov ovpaydv Kal kara- 
Bava 7d rvedpa 7d Gyop (ii. 21, 22). 


paxdprot ol wruryol, bre buetépa eoriv 
% Bacthela Tod Geov, paxdpioe ol mec- 
vavTes viv, bre xoprac@yjcovra (vi. 
20, 21; Mt. v. 3-6). 

émioTpéyat Kapdlas matépwv éri 
rékva* Kal dmeBets ev Ppovycet dixalwy 
(i. 17; Mal. iv. 5). 

kal éay peravoncn, 
(xvii. 3). 

€drjrvbev 6 vids Tod avOpwrov écOwv 
kal wlywy (vii. 343 Mt. xi. 19). 


ages 


avT@ 


Besides these verbal coincidences there are many coincidences 


in thought, especially respecting the admission of the Gentiles to 
the Kingdom through the Messiah, who is the Saviour of all, Jew 
and Gentile alike. ‘The Lord shall raise up from Levi a Priest, 
and from Judah a King, God and man. He shall save all the 
nations and the race of Israel” (Simeon vii.). ‘A King shall rise 
from Judah and shall make a new priesthood . . . unto all the 
nations (Levi viii.). Comp. Judah xxiv. ; Zebulon ix.; Dan. vi. ; 
Naphtali iv., viii.; Asher vii.; Benjamin ix. Moreover, there are 
passages which are very similar in meaning, although not in word- 
ing, to passages in Luke: comp. the end of Joseph xvii. with 
Lk. xvii. 27, and the beginning of Joseph xviii. with Lk. vi. 28. 

It is hardly necessary to trace the history of the Third Gospel 
in detail any further. It has been shown already (pp. xv—xvii) 
that Justin Martyr, Tatian, Celsus, the writer of the Clementine 
Homilies, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, and the Churches of 
Lyons and Vienne, knew the Third Gospel, and that Irenzus, the 


boxx * THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 10. 


Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others 
definitely assign it to S. Luke. In the second half of the second 
century this Gospel is recognized as authentic and authoritative ; 
and it is impossible to show that it had not been thus recognized 
at a very much earlier date. 

The order of the Gospels has not always been the same. But, 
just as in the interpretation of the four symbolical creatures, the 
calf has uniformly been taken as indicating S. Luke, so in the 
arrangement of the Gospels his has almost invariably been placed 
third. The order with which we are familiar is the common order 
in most MSS. and Versions: but in D 594, abcdefff,igr and 
the Gothic Version, and in the Apostolic Constitutions, what is called 
the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) prevails. The 
obvious reason for it is to have the two Apostles together and before 
the other two Evangelists. In a few authorities other arrangements 
are found. X and the Latin & have John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, 
while 90 has John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and 399 John, Luke, 
Matthew. The Curetonian Syriac has Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. 


§ 10. COMMENTARIES, 


A good and full list of commentaries on the Gospels is given 
by Dr. W. P. Dickson.in the English translation of Meyer’s Com- 
mentary on S. Matthew, i. pp. xxili—-xlili and of commentaries on 
S. Mark and S. Luke in that of Meyer’s Commentary on S. Mark 
end S. Luke, i. pp. xiii-xvi. It will suffice to name a few of the 
chief works mentioned by him, especially those which have been 
in constant use during the writing of this commentary, and to add 
a few others which have appeared since Dr. Dickson published 
his lists (1877, 1880), or for other reasons were omitted by him.* 
Of necessity the selection here given in many cases corresponds 
with that in the volume on Romans by Dr. Sanday and Mr. 
Headlam; and the reader is referred to that (pp. xcix—cix) for 
excellent remarks on the characteristics of the different com- 
mentaries, which need not be repeated here. 


1. GREEK WRITERS. 


OricEN (Orig.); + 253. Homilix in Lucam in Origenis Opp. 
ed. Delarue, iii. 932; Lommatzsch, v. 85; Migne, xili. 1801, 
1902. These thirty-nine short Homilies are an early work, and 
have been preserved in the Latin translation made by Jerome. A 
few fragments of the original Greek survive in the PAz/ocalia (ed. 


1 See also Jrtroduction to the Synoptic Gospels by Dr. P. J. Gloag, T. & T- 
Clark, 1895, and the literature quoted p. 200 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES IXxXx1 


J. A. Robinson, Camb. 1893) and elsewhere. The genuineness of 
these Homilies has been disputed, but is not doubtful. A sum- 
mary of the contents of each is given in Westcott’s article 
OricengEs, D. Chr. Biog. iv. 113. The first twenty are on Lk. 
i., ii., and the next twelve on Lk. iii., iv., leaving the main portion 
oi the Gospel almost untouched. Besides these there are frag- 
ments of notes in the original Greek, which have been preserved 
in Venice MS. (28, 394); Migne, xviii. 311-370. They extend 
over chapters i.—xx. 

Eusesius of Czsarea (Eus.); t before 341. Eis 76 xara 
Aovkéy ebayyéAvov in Migne, xxiv. 529. Only fragments remain: 
on Lk: i. 5, 18, 19, 32, 35, 38, ll. 32, iv. 1SMvi. 18, 20, vil. 29, 30, 
Vill. 31, 43, 1X. I, 3, 4, 7, 26, 28, 34, x. 6, 8, xi. 21, xii. 11, 22, 34, 
36) 37) 42) 45, Xili. 20, 35, xiv. 18, xvii. 3, 23, 25-31, 34, 37) 
XVili. 2, Xix. 12, 13, 17, XX. 2, 3, XX1. 25, 26, 28-32, 36, xxii. 30, 57, 
Xxiv. 

Cram of Alexandria (Cyr. Alex.); + 444. “E&jynois «is 7d 
kata Aovkay evayyéAvov in Migne, Ixxil. 475. Only portions of the 
original Greek are extant, but a Syriac version of the whole has 
been edited by Dr. R. Payne Smith, who has also translated this 
version into English (Oxford, 1859). The Syriac version shows 
that many Greek fragments previously regarded as part of the com- 
mentary are from other writings of Cyril, or even from other writ- 
ings which are not his. The Greek fragments which coincide with 
the Syriac prove that the latter is a faithful translation, The com- 
mentary is homiletic in form. 

THEopHy.act (Theoph.), archbishop of Bulgaria (1071-1078); 
tafter 1118. Migne, cxxili. 

EvuTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS (Euthym.); fafter 1118. Migne, 
cxxix. 853. 

These two almost contemporaneous commentaries are among 
the best of their kind. They draw much from earlier writers, but 
do not follow slavishly, and are far superior to medizval Latin 
commentaries. The terseness of Euthymius is not unlike that of 
Bengel. 


2. LaTIN WRITERS. 


AmprosE (Ambr.); 1397. Z£xfositio Evang. sec. Lucam; 
Migne, xv. 1525. Ambrose follows Philo and Origen in seeking 
for spiritual or mystical meanings under the natural or historical 
sense, and these are sometimes very far-fetched : 2” verbis ludtt, in 
sententits dormitat (Jerome, Prol. in Hom. Orig. in Luc.). 

EvucHERIUS; +449 or 450. Liber instructionum in Luce 
Evang. ; Migne, 1. 799. 

ARNOBIUS JUNIOR; tafter 460. Amnmnotationes ad quedam 
oe Joca ; Migne, liii. 570, 578. 


Ixxxii -THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 10. 


PaTERIus of Brescia; friend of Gregory the Great. He col- 
lected from the writings of Gregory an Lxfositio Vet. et (Nov. 
Test., of which Book III. is a catena of Passages on S. Luke; 
Migne, Ixxix. 1057. In the eleventh century the monk ALULF 
made a similar collection ; Migne, Ixxix. 1199. 

None of these works are very helpful as regards exegesis. 
Eucherius and Arnobius do not repay perusal. The extracts from 
Gregory are mainly from the J/ova/ia or commentary on Job, full 
of allegorical interpretation. 

Breve, the Venerable; +735. Jn Lucam Exp. Libri VI.; 
Migne, xcii. 397; Giles, xi., xii.; ed. Colon. 1612, v. 217. The 
character of the work may be given in his own words: “I have 
made it my business, for the use of me and mine, briefly to com- 
pile out of works of the venerable Fathers, and to interpret accord- 
ing to their meaning (adding somewhat of my own) these 
following pieces ”—and he gives a list of his writings (A. Z. sub 
jin. See also the Prol. in Marc.). This commentary is far 
superior to those just mentioned, and is an oasis in a desert. 

SEDULIUS Scotus; + ¢. 830. A mere compiler, often from 
Origen; Migne, ciii. 27, WALAFRID STRaABUS of Reichenau ; 
+849. Glossa ordinaria, a compilation with some original matter ; 
Migne, cxiv. 243, 893. It became very famous. We may pass 
over with bare mention CHRISTIANUS DRUTHMARUS; ¢ 850; 
Migne, cvi. 1503: BRUNO ASTENSIS; ¢. 1125; Migne, clxv. 33: 
and PETRUS CoMESTOR ; ¢. 1180; Migne, cxcviii. 1537. 

THomas Aquinas, Doctor Angelicus; +1274.  Lxpositio 
continua or Catena aurea in Evangelia, a mosaic of quotations (to 
be accepted with caution) from over eighty Christian writers, from 
Ignatius to Euthymius, so arranged as to form a summary of 
patristic theological teaching. O#. ed. Venet. iv. 5 ; translated 
Oxford, 1845. 

ALBERTUS Macnus of Ratisbon; ¢ 1280. 


3. REFORMATION AND PosT-REFORMATION WRITERS. 


Erasmus, Desiderius; 11536. Adnotationes in NV.T., 1516; 
Paraphrases, 1522. 

BuTZER or Bucer, Martin; 1551. Jn sacra quatuor Evan- 
gelia Enarrationes, 1551. 

Catvin, John; +1564. Jn harmoniam ex Matt. Marc. et Luc. 
compositam Commentarit, 1553; Brunsvige, 1868; translated by 
the Calvin Trans. Society, 1842; strong and independent. 

Beza, Theodore; +1605. <Adnotationes in NV.T., 1565, 
1594- 

Grotius (Huig van Groot); +1645. Adnotationes in N.T., 
t644. Arminian; an early attempt to apply philological principles 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES bexxiii 


(learned from J. J. Scaliger) and classical illustrations to the Bible ; 
still useful. 

Hammonb, Henry ; + 1660. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; 
“the Father of English Commentators.” Paraphrase and Annota- 
tions of the N.T., 1653, 1845; “reveals genuine exegetical tact 
and learning.” Biblical paraphrase is of English origin. 

One or two Roman Catholic commentators in this period 
require mention. 

CajEtTAN, Cardinal (Jacob de Vio) ; +1534; a Dominican. Jz 
quatuor Evang. et Acta Apost. Commentarit, 1543. Under pressure 
from Luther (1518) he became considerably emancipated from 
patristic and scholastic influence. 

Ma.ponatus, Joannes (Maldon.); +1583; a Spanish Jesuit. 
Commentarit in quatuor Evangelia 1596; ed. Sansen, 1840; ed. 
K. Martin (condensed) 1850. Admirable of its kind: he rarely 
shirks a difficulty, and is often sagacious in his exposition. An 
English translation by G. J. Davie is being published by 
Hodges. 

CoRNELIUS A LaPIDE (van Stein); 11637; a Jesuit. Comm. 
in quatuor Evang., 1638. Part of a commentary on almost the 
whole Bible. A voluminous compilation, including much allegory 
and legend; devout and often edifying, but sometimes puerile. 
English translation of the Comm. on S. Luke, Hodges, 1887. 

Escopar Y MeEnposa, Antonio; +1669; a Spanish Jesuit, 
whose casuistry was gibbeted by Pascal. Jn Evangelia sanctorum 
et temporis commentarit, 1637. 

Two great names in the eighteenth century serve well as a 
transition from the writers of the two preceding centuries to the 
present age. 

BENGEL, Johann Albrecht (Beng.); +1751. Gnomon N.T., 
1742. A masterpiece, rivalling Euthymius Zigabenus in terseness, 
and excelling him in originality and insight. English translation, 
Clark, 1857. 

WETSTEIN, Johann Jacob (Wetst.); +1754. Vou. Test. 
Grecum, 1751, 1752. A monument of criticism and learning. 
Wetstein was a leader in the field of textual criticism, and the 
stores of learning collected in his notes have been of the greatest 
service to all subsequent students of N.T. 


4. MODERN WRITERS. 


SCHLEIERMACHER, Fried. Dan. Ernst; +1834; Ueber die 
Schriften des Lukas, 1817. Translated anonymously by Thirlwall, 
1825. 

BoORNEMANN, Fried. August.; 1850. Scholia in Luce Evan- 
gelium, 1830. , 


Ixxxiv . THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 10. 


De Werte, Wilh. Mart. L.; 1849. <Kurze Erklarung der 
Evangelien des Lukas und Markus, 1839. Free, precise, and 
compact. 

Meyer, Hein. Aug. Wilh.; +1873.  <Kritisch exegetischer 
Kommentar uber das N.T. Markus und Lukas, 1846. Excellent. 
A good English translation of the fifth edition was published by 
T. & T. Clark, 1880. Grammar is sometimes ridden to death; 
but this is still one of the best commentaries for English readers. 
The German revisions of Meyer by Bernhard Weiss, 1885, etc., 
are superior, especially as regards the text. 

OosTERZEE, Jan Jacob van; 1882. In Lange’s Theologische- 
homiletisches Bibelwerk, 1857-1876, he commented on S. Luke. 
English translation published by T. & T. Clark, 1864. The notes 
are in three sections throughout ; critical, doctrinal, and homiletic. 

Hany, G. L., Professor of Theology at Breslau. Das Zvan- 
gelium des Lukas, 1892, 1894. Two substantial volumes, full of 
useful material, but grievously perverse in questions of textual 
criticism. 

ScHanz, Paul. Das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas, 1883. 
Probably much the best Roman Catholic commentary. 

LasserRE, Henri. Les Saints Evangiles, 1886, 1887. A 
French translation of the Gospels with brief notes. Uncritical, but 
interesting. It received the ¢mprimatur of the Archbishop of 
Paris and the praise of Leo x111., ran through twenty-five editions 
in two years, and then through the influence of the Jesuits was 
suppressed. 

GopET, Fréderic, Professor at Neuchatel. Commentaire sur 
? Evangile de S. Luc, 1871, 1872, 1888. Equal to Meyer in 
exegesis, but weak in textual criticism. The edition of 1888 is 
greatly to be preferred. An English translation of the second 
edition was published by T. & T. Clark, 1879. 

ALForRD, Henry; 1871. Greek Testament, vol. i. 1849, 5th 
ed. 1863. Sensible and clear. 

WorpsworTH, Christopher, Bishop of Lincoln; 11885. 
Greek Testament, vol. i. 1856, 5th ed. 1866. Scholarly and devout, 
supplying the patristic element wanting in Alford, but otherwise 
inferior ; weak in textual criticism. 

McCLELLAN, John Brown. Zhe ew Testament, a new trans- 
lation, from a revised text, with analyses, copious references and 
illustrations, chronological and analytical harmony, notes and dis- 
sertations, vol. i. 1875; unfortunately the only one published. 
Contains some grotesque renderings and perverse arguments, with 
a great deal of valuable matter. 

PLuMPTRE, Edward Hayes; +1891. The Synoptic Gospels in 
Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, Cassell, 1878. 
Popular and suggestive, with a tendency to excessive ingenuity, 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES Ixxxv 


Jones, William Basil, Bishop of St. David’s, and Cook, 
Frederic Charles, Canon of Exeter; St. Luke in the Sfeaker’s 
Commentary, 1878. Inadequate. 

Carr, Arthur, JVotes on the Greek Testament, St. Luke, 1875. 
A scholarly handbook. 

Farrar, Fred. William, Dean of Canterbury. St. Luke in the 
Cambridge Greek Testament, 1884 and later. More full, but less 
precise, than Carr. 

SADLER, Michael Ferrebee: 71895. Gospel acc. to St. Luke, 
1886. Dogmatic and practical rather than critical: somewhat 
capricious in textual criticism. 

Bond, John. WH. text of St. Luke with introduction and 
notes, 1890. Brief to a fault, but useful. 

CAMPBELL, Colin. Critical Studies in St. Luke’s Gospel, 1890. 
Fails to establish a special demonology and Ebionite tendency, 
but contains many useful remarks, 

BERNARD, Thomas Dehany. Zhe Songs of the Holy Nativity, 
1895. Did not come to the knowledge of the present writer until 
the commentary on chapters i. and ii. was in print.} 

Index II. contains the names of many other writers whose 
works are of great use to the student of this Gospel. 


1 A similar fact caused the omission at p. xxix of some recent discussions of 
the Synoptic problem: e.g. The Abbé Loisy, Essays in ZL’ Enseignement 
Biblique, 1892, Revue des Religions, 1894, and Revue Bzbligue, 1896 (see the 
Guardian, August 1896, p. 1317); W. Arnold Stevens and E. De Witt Burton, 
A Harmony of the Gospels for Historical Study, Boston, 1896. 


ABBREVIATIONS: 


Ecclestastical Writers. 
Ambr. 


Aug. 
Bas. 


Chrys. 
Clem. 
Clem. 


Clem. 
Clem. 


Aiew 
Hom. 


Recogn. 
Rom. 


Iren-lat. 


ee 


Ambrose. 

Augustine. 

Basil. 

Chrysostom. 

Clement of Alexandria. 
Clementine Homilies. 
Clementine Recognitions. 
Clement of Rome. 
Cyprian. 

Cyril of Alexandria. 
Cyril of Jerusalem. 
Dionysius of Alexandria. 
Epiphanius. 

Eusebius. 

Euthymius Zigabenus. 
Gregory of Nazianzum. 
Gregory of Nyssa. 
Hermas. 

Hippolytus. 

Ignatius. 

Irenzus. 

Latin Version of Irenzeus, 
Jerome. 

Josephus. 


Latin Version of Origen. 
Tertullian. 
Theophylact. 


Egyptian. 
Bohairic, 
Sahidic. 


Oi 8.6. ee. @ Oa: as" oo8 6 0-4 @q6a 6 ee s @€ « 


ABBREVIATIONS bexxvi 


Ethiopic. 


Syriac. 

Curetonian. 
Sinaitic. 

Peshitto. 

Harclean, 
Jerusalem. 
Coverdale. 

Geneva. 

Luther. 

Rheims (or Douay). 
Tyndale. 

Wiclif. 

Authorized Version. 
Revised Version. 


Textus Receptus. 
Tischendorf. 
Tregelles. 

Westcott and Hort. 
Alford. 

Bengel. 

De Wette. 

Grotius. 
Maldonatus. 
Meyer. 

Nosgen. 

Wetstein. 
Wordsworth (Chr.). 


Burton, V.Z7: Moods ana 
Tenses. 

Corpus Inscriptionum Gre 
carum. 

Pére sl Jesus Christ. 


Ixxxvill THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 


Lft. Epp. ° - J. B. Lightfoot,! Votes on 
Epistles of S. Paul. 

Wsctt. . : ° - Westcott. 

Edersh. Z. & Z, 5 » Edersheim, Zife and Times 
of Jesus the Messiah. 

Fist. of J. N. - History of the Jewish Nation. 

Rob. Res. in Pal. : e Robinson, Aesearches in 

Palestine. 


Schiirer, 7. P. in T. of J. C. .« Schiirer, Jewish People in the 
Times of Jesus Christ. 


Scriv. Znt. e - Scrivener, Jntroduction to 
the Criticism of the New 
Testament. 


Stanley, Sin. & Fal, Stanley, Sizaiand Palestine 


Trench, Mir. . 4 e Trench, Miracles. 
ATs ° ° »  Larables. 
Syn. . ° . »  LVew Testament Syn- 
onyms. 
Tristram, Vat. Hist.of B. . Tristram, Vatural History 
of the Bible. 
D. B2 or D. B.? ° e Smith’s Dictionary of the 
Bible, 1st or 2nd edition. 
D. Chr. Ant. « . e Smith’s Dictionary of Chris- 


tian Antiquities. 
Kraus, Keal-Enc. d. Chr. Alt. Kraus, Real- Encyklopadie 
der Christlichen Alter- 
' thiimer. 
Herzog, PRZ.1 or PRE.2 . Herzog’s Protestantische 
Real-Encyklopidie, 1st or 
2nd edition. 


Crem. Lex. . ° « Cremer, Lexicon of New 
Testament Greek. 

L.& S. Lew. ° - Liddle and Scott, Lexicon. 

Greg. Proleg. « . « Gregory, Prolegomena ad 
Tischendorfi ed. N.T. 

Win. . ° . - Winer, Grammar of N.T. 
Greek (the page refers to 
Moulton’s edition). 

om. . e ° ° omit. 

ins. e e e - insert. 


N.B.—The text commented upon is that of Westcott and Hort. The 
very few instances in which the editor is inclined to dissent from this 
text are noted as they occur. 


1 The name of John Lightfoot is not abbreviated in this volume, 


THE 
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE. 


—_-———— 


THE TITLE OF THE GOSPEL 


THE title cannot be any part of the original autograph. It is 
found in different forms in ancient authorities, the earliest being 
the simplest: xara Aouxay (8 B F), evayyéAtov kata Aouxay (A C 
D 2), 76 xara Aouxay etayyéAtov or 76 kata Aovuxay dytov evayyéALov 
(cursives). 


The xara neither affirms nor denies authorship: it implies conformity to a 
type. But, inasmuch as all four Gospels have the xa7vd, these uniform titles 
must be interpreted according to the belief of those who gave the titles, viz. the 
Christians of the first four centuries ; and it was their belief that each Evangelist 
composed the Gospel which bears his name. Had the xard meant no more 
than ‘‘drawn up according to the teaching of,” then this Gospel would have 
been called xara Ilaidov, and the second Gospel would have been called xara 
Tlézporv ; for it was the general tradition that Mark wrote according to the 
teaching of Peter, and Luke (in a different sense) according to the teaching of 
Paul. The xard, however, is not a mere substitute for the genitive of author- 
ship, but indicates that the same subject has been treated by others. Thus, 
9 wadad diabyxn Kara Tods €8dou7jxorv7a points to the existence of other transla- 
tions, just as “Ounpos xara "Apictapxoy or xara ’Apiatogdryy points to the 
existence of other editions. That the xard does not exclude authorship is 
shown by such expressions as 7 xa7a Mwioéa xevrdzevyos (Epiphanius) and 
i xaQ” “Hpédorov icropia (Diodorus): comp. év ois tropynparicpois Tols Kata 
roy Necuiay (2 Mac. ii. 13). Strictly speaking, there is only one Gospel, 
evayyeioy Geo’, the Gospel of God concerning His Son (Rom. i. 1); but it 
has been given to us in four shapes, evayyéNov tetpdyopgor (Iren. Her. 
di. 11. 8), and the xard indicates the shape in which the writer named 


composed it. 


L 14 THE PROLOGUE OR PREFACE. 


The classical style of this opening, and its similarity to the 
prefaces of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius, hardly amount 
to proof that Lk. was well read in classical literature, and con- 
sciously imitated Greek historians ; but there is nothing improbable 
in this supposition. Among the words which are classical rather 


2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [LL 


than biblical should be noticed éreidyzep, értyetpetv, avardooes Oat, 
Supynows, xafeEMs. The construction also is classical, and in no 
way Hebraistic. We have clauses idiomatically interlaced, not 
simply co-ordinated. The modest position claimed by the writer 
is evidence of his honesty. A forger would have claimed to be an 
eye-witness, and would have made no apology for writing. Ewald 
remarks that “in its utter simplicity, modesty, and brevity, it is 
the model of a preface to an historical work.” Its grammatical 
construction should be compared with that of the preface to the 
synodical epistle in Acts xv. 24, 25: ‘EwewSy qxovocopev . . . edogev 
NLL. 

This prologue contains all that we really kxow respecting the 
composition of early narratives of the life of Christ, and it is the 
test by which theories as to the origin of our Gospels must be 
judged. No hypothesis is likely to be right which does not 
harmonize with what is told us here. Moreover, it shows that an 
inspired writer felt that he was bound to use research and care in 
order to secure accuracy. 

1. *Enev8ymep. A stately compound, suitable for a solemn 
opening: freq. in class. Grk., but not found in LXX, or elsewhere 
in N.T. Quoniam quidem, “ For as much as,” Weil denn einmal. 

moddot. The context seems to imply that these, like Lk., were 
not eye-witnesses. That at once would exclude Mt., whose Gospel 
Lk. does not appear to have known. It is doubtful whether Mk. 
is included in the zodAo&Z The writers of extant apocryphal 
gospels cannot be meant, for these are all of later origin. Probably 
all the documents here alluded to were driven out of existence by 
the manifest superiority of the four Canonical Gospels. The 
émtxeipnoay cannot imply censure, as some of the Fathers thought, 
for Lk. brackets himself with these writers (é0fe xaot); what 
they attempted he may attempt. The word occurs 2 Mac. ii. 29, 
vii. 19 ; Acts ix. 29, xix. 13; and is freq. in class. Grk. in the sense 
of “put the hand to, take in hand, attempt.” The notion of 
unlawful or unsuccessful attempting is sometimes implied by the 
context: it is not contained in the word. Luther renders unter- 
wunden haben, “have ventured.” Lk. must have regarded these 
attempts as insufficient, or he would not have added another. 
Meyer quotes Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valckenaer), éwecdyrep wept tovtou 
modXol érixeipyoav amoAoyjcacfa. It is doubtful whether 
em.xetp. necessarily implies a great undertaking. 

dvatdéaca. Sijyynow. “To draw up again in order a narra- 
tive”; z.e. to arrange afresh so as to show the sequence of events. 
The verb is a rare one, and occurs elsewhere only Plut. AZoral. 

p. 969 C, De sollert. animal. xii. (Reiske, x. p. 36), in the sense ot 
ractice go over again in order,” Iren. iti. 21. 2, and as v4 
Eccles, ii. 20. The subst. implies something more than mere 


eae: | THE PROLOGUE OR PREFACE 3 


notes or anecdotes; “a leading through to the end” (durch- 
Jihren), “a narrative” (Ecclus. vi. 35, ix. 15 ; 2 Mac. ii. 32, vi. 
17; Plat. Rep. 392 D; Arist. /Hez. iii. 16. 1). 


Versions vary greatly: ordinare narrationem (Latt.), componere narra- 
tionem (Beza), stellen die Rede (Luth.), “ordeyne the telling” (Wic.), 
“compyle a treates” (Tyn.), “set forth the words” (Cov.), “set forth the 
declaracion”’ (Cran.), “‘ write the historie” (Gen.), “compile a narration” 
ae “set forth in order a declaration” (AV.), “draw up a narrative” 

RV.), composer une narration suivie (Godet), coordonner en corps de récit 
(Lasserre), “ Restore from memory a narrative” (Blass). 


Tov jweTANpodopypévov. “Of the things which have been car- 
ried through to the end, of the matters which have been accom- 
plished, fully established.” Here again English Versions differ 
much; but “surely known” (Tyn.), “surely to be believed” 
(Cran.), “surely believed” (AV.), cannot be justified. The vert 
when used of fersons may mean “persuade fully, convince,” and 
in pass. “be fully persuaded” (Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5); but of chings 
it means “fulfil” (2 Tim. iv. 5, 17). Here we may render 
“accomplished.” Others less well render “fully proved.” See 
Lightfoot on Col. iv. 12. The év jpiv probably means “among us 
Christians.” Christendom is the sphere in which these facts have 
had their full accomplishment. The 7iv in ver. 2 shows that con- 
temporaries are not meant. If these things were handed down to 
Lk., then he was not contemporary with them. The verse is 
evidence that the accomplished facts were already fully established 
and widely known, for they had already been narrated by many. 
See Westcott, Jnr. to Gosp. p. 190, 7th ed. 

2. xabds mapedocay jpiv. “ Hven as they delivered them to us.” 
The difference between as, “as,” and kafds, “just as,” should be 
marked in translation: the correspondence was exact. Lk. im- 
plies that he himself was among those who vecezved the tradition. 
Like the zoAAoi, he can only arrange afresh what has been handed 
down, working at second hand, not as an eye-witness. He gives 
no hint as to whether the facts were handed down orally or in 
writing. The difference between the zodAoi and these adrérrat is 
not that the zoAAoi wrote their narratives while the atromwra did 
not, but that the airérrat were primary authorities, which the 
moNAol were not. 

Smppétat yevouevor tod Adyou. They not only had personal know: 
ledge of the facts (atrémra), they also had practical experience of 
the effects. They had preached and taught, and had thus learned 
what elements in the Gospel were of most efficacy for the winning 
and saving of souls. That rod Adyou belongs to brnpérat only, not 
to av’rémra:, and means “the doctrine,” z.e. the Gospel (Acts vi. 4, 
Vili. 4, Xiv. 25, xvi. 6, xvii. 11), is manifest from the context. 
Origen and Athanasius are wrong in making vod Adyov mean the 


4 ‘THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [LI.2,3. 


personal Word, the Son of God, a use which is peculiar to Jn. 
The am’ dpxns refers to the beginning of Christ’s ministry (Jn. xv. 
27, Xv1. 4). For éwnpétns see on iv. 20 and comp. Acts xiii. 5. 

8. eof kapot. This is the main sentence, the apodosis of 
erevdymep moAXol érexeipnoay. It neither implies nor excludes 
inspiration: the édofe may or may not have been inspired. The 
wish to include inspiration caused the addition in some Latin 
MSS. of e¢ spiritui sancto (Acts xv. 28), which makes what follows 
to be incongruous. With édofe comp. the Muratorian Fragment : 
Lucas iste medicus . . . nomine suo ex opinione conscripstii— 
Dominum tamen nec tpse vidit in carne—et idem, prout assequi 
potuit, ita et a nativitate Joannis incepit dicere. The xapoi shows 
that Lk. does not blame the zodAoc: he desires to imitate and 
supplement them. It is their attempts that encourage him to write. 
What they have done he may do, and perhaps he may be able to 
improve upon their work. This is his first reason for writing a 
narrative. 

mapykoov0yKdtt. This is his second reason for writing, making 
the argument @ fortiori. He has had special advantages and 
qualifications ; and therefore what was allowed to others may be 
still more allowed to him. ‘These qualifications are fourfold, and 
are told off with precision. In the literal sense of “following a 
person closely so as to be always beside him,” zapaxodovGety 
does not occur in N.T. Here it does not mean that Lk. was 
contemporaneous with the events, but that he had brought himself 
abreast of them by careful investigation. Comp. the famous 
passage in Dem. De Cor. cap. liil. p..285 (344), tapaxoAovOyKxdra 
Tois mpaypacw e€ apyis. 

avw0ev. This is the 7st of the four qualifications: he has gone 
back to the very beginning, viz. the promise of the birth of the 
Forerunner. ‘From the first” is the meaning of avw6ev here, not 
“thoroughly,” vadicitus, as in Acts xxvi. 5, which would make 
avwGev almost the same as waouw. Vulg. has a principio, and d@ has 
desusum (comp. the French dessus). It is the maow which implies 
thoroughness ; and this is the second point. He has begun at the 
beginning, and he has investigated everything. The Syriac makes 
mwacw masc., but there is little doubt that it is neut., and refers to 
mpayparwv in ver. I. 

axpiBas. This is the ¢4zrd point. He has done all this 
“accurately.” There is no idle boast in any one of the three 
points. No other Gospel gives us this early history about the 
Baptist and the Christ. No other is throughout so full, for of 
170 sections contained in the synoptic narrative 48 are peculiar 
to Lk. And, in spite of the severest scrutiny, his accuracy can 
very rarely be impugned. We cannot be sure whether he means 
to imply that dxpyBas was not true of the zodAo/, but we may be 


L 3, 4.| THE PROLOGUE OR PREFACE 5 


sure that none of them could claim all three of these points. Ir 
any case we have an inspired historian telling us in his inspired 
writings that he is giving us the results of careful investigation. 
From this it seems to follow that an inspired historian may fail in 
accuracy if his investigation is defective. 

xadeéjs. This is the fourth point, resulting from the other three. 
He does not propose to give a mere collection of anecdotes and 
detached sayings, but an orderly narrative systematically arranged. 
Chronological order is not necessarily implied in xaGeéjs, but 
merely arrangement of some kind. Nevertheless, he probably 
has chronological order chiefly in view. In N.T. the word is 
peculiar to Lk. (viii. 1; Acts iii. 24, xi. 4, xviii. 23), as is also 
the more classical é&7s (vil. 11, ix. 37, etc.) ; but édeéjs does not 
occur. 

Kpdtiote Ocopide. The epithet xpdricros, often given to persons 
of rank (Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25), is strongly in favour of 
the view that Theophilus was a real person. The name Theophilus 
was common both among Jews (= Jedidiah) and among Gentiles, 
But it was a name likely to be used to represent any pious reader. 
See Lft. on “ Acts,” D.B.? pp. 25, 26. The word xpaticros occurs 
in N.T. only here and in the Acts, where it is evidently a purely 
official epithet, for the persons to whom it is applied are of bad 
character. 

4, wva émyvods wept dv KaTnxyOys Adyov Thy dopdderay. “In 
order that thou mightest fully know the certainty concerning the 
words wherein thou wast instructed.” The Adyo. are not the 
mpdypata or historic facts, but the details of the Adyos or Gospel 
(ver. 2), which “ministers of the word” had communicated to 
Theophilus. The compound érvyv@s indicates additional and more 
thorough knowledge. It is very freq. in Lk. and Paul: see esp. 
Rom. 1. 28, 32; 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Lft. on Col. i. 9; Trench, Sya, 
Ixxv. In N.T. xarnyeiv, “to sound down into the ears, teach 
orally,” is found only in Lk. and Paul. The position of ri 
dopdadcay gives it solemn emphasis. Theophilus shall know that 
the faith which he has embraced has an impregnable historical 
foundation. 


The idiomatic attraction, mepl dy xarnx4Ons Adywr, is best resolved into 
mepl Tv Abywr ods KaTnxHOns, not mepl THv Abyww Tepl Gy Karnx7HOns. Only 
of persoys does mepl twos stand after xarnxelv (Acts xxi. 21, 24): of things 
me have the acc. (Acts xviii. 25; Gal. vi. 6). These attractions are very freq. 
in Lk. 


On the superficial resemblance between this preface and Jos. Con. Apion. 1. 
9, 10, see Godet, i. pp. 92, 93, 3¢me ed. 1888. The resemblance hardly 
amounts to remarkable coincidence, and such similarities are common in 
literature. It is more interesting to compare this preface with that of the 
medical writer Dioscorides. The opening words of Dioscorides’ treatise, wept 
bAns larpixjs, run thus: ToAAGy ov pdvov dpxalwy, ddAAd Kal véwy cvvratapévwr 


6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [i 4. 


wept Ths Tov dapydKxwy cxevaclas re kal Svvdwews kal Soxipaclas, Pidrate ’Apete, 
mepdcoual cor wapacricat wh Kevyy unde ddoyov opuhy éoxnxévar mpds THVOE THY 
mwpayyarelay. The date of Dioscorides Pedacius is uncertain; but, as Pliny 
does not mention him, he is commonly assigned to the first or second century 
A.D. He is said to have been a native of Anazarbus in Cilicia, about fifty 
miles from Tarsus; and in that case he would almost certainly obtain his 
medical knowledge in the great school at Tarsus. That he and S. Luke may 
have been there at the same time with S. Paul, seems to be a not impossible 
conjecture. The treatise wep) dpyalys lnrpixijs, commonly attributed to Hippo- 
crates (c. 460-350 B.C.), begins: ‘Oxéco. éwexelpnoav wept inrpixns Aéyew 7 
yodpew, K.T.A. 


L 5-IL 52. THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY. 


These chapters have often been attacked as unhistorical. 
That Marcion omitted them from his mutilated edition of this 
Gospel is of no moment. He did not do so upon critical grounds, 
but because their contents did not harmonize with his doctrine. 
It is more to the point to urge that these early narratives 
lack apostolic authority; that they cover ground which popular 
imagination, in the absence of history, would be sure to fill; that 
they abound in angelic appearances and other marvels; that 
their form is often highly poetical; and that it is sometimes 
difficult to reconcile them with the narrative of Mt. or with 
known facts of history. To this it may be replied that reserve 
would keep Christ’s Mother from making known these details at 
first. Even Apostles may have been ignorant of them, or unwilling 
to make them known until the comparatively late period at which 
Lk. wrote. The dignity, beauty, and spirituality of these narratives 
is strong evidence of their authenticity, especially when contrasted 
with the silly, grotesque, and even immoral details in the apo- 
cryphal gospels. They abound in historic features, and are 
eminently true to life. Their independence of Mt. is evident, 
and both accounts bear the stamp of truthfulness, which is not 
destroyed by possible discrepancies in a few minor points. That 
Lk. is ever at variance with other historians, has still to be proved ; 
and the merit of greater accuracy may still be with him, even if 
such variance exists. 

This Gospel of the Infancy is made up of seven narratives, 
in two parallel groups of three, followed by a supplement, which 
connects these two groups with the main body of the Gospel. 

I. 1. The Annunication of the Birth of the Forerunner 
(5-25); 2. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38) ; 
3. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of 
the Forerunner (39-56). 

II. 4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80); 5. The Birth of 
the Saviour (ii. 1-20); 6. The Circumcision and Presentation of 
the Saviour (ii. 21-40). 


L 5.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY Vy) 


III. 7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (ii. 41-52). 

On the two accounts of our Lord’s infancy see E. C. S. 
Gibson, Exfositor, 2nd series, iii. p. 116; Gore, Dissertations on 
Subjects connected with the Incarnation, pp. 12 ff.: Murray, 1895. 


I. 5-25. Zhe Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner. 


“When John the Baptist appeared, not the oldest man in 
Palestine could remember to have spoken even in his earliest 
childhood with any man who had seen a prophet... . In these 
circumstances it was an occurrence of the first magnitude, more 
important far than war or revolution, when a new prophet actually 
appeared” (Zcce Homo, ch. i.). The miracles recorded are in 
keeping with this. God was making a new departure in dealing 
with His people. We need not, therefore, be startled if a highly 
exceptional situation is accompanied by highly exceptional facts. 
After more than three centuries of silence, Jehovah again speaks 
by prophecies and signs to Israel. But there is no violent rupture 
with the past in making this new departure. The announcement 
of the rise of a new Prophet is made in the temple at Jerusalem, 
to a priest of the old covenant, who is to be the Prophet’s father. 
It is strong evidence of the historic truth of the narrative that no 
miracles are prophesied of the new Prophet, and that after his 
appearance his disciples attribute none to him. 


5. "Eyéveto év tais ipepats. The elegant idiomatic Greek of the 
preface comes abruptly to an end. Although the marks of Lk.’s 
style are as abundant here as in any part of the Gospel, yet the 
form of the narrative is strongly Hebraistic; so much so that one 
may be confident that he is translating from an Aramaic document. 
These first two chapters seem to consist of a series of such docu- 
ments, each with a distinct conclusion (i. 80, ii. 40, ii. 52). If they 
are historical, the Virgin Mary must have been the source of much 
that is contained in these first two chapters; and she may have 
been the writer of documents used by Lk. In any case, we have 
here the earliest documentary evidence respecting the origins of 
Christianity which has come down to us,—evidence which may 
justly be called contemporary. Both éyévero and & tais jyépats 
are Hebraistic (see on ver. 39); but there is no need to understand 
nv or any other verb after éyevero, “It came to pass that there was.” 
Rather, “There arose, came into notice,” or simply “ There was.” 
See on iv. 36, and comp. Mk. i. 4; Jn. i. 6. 

“Hpwdou Bacthéws tis “loudaias. Herod “the Great,” a title not 


8 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [r 6. 


given to him by his contemporaries, who during his last years 
suffered greatly from his cruelty. It is in these last years that the 
narrative of Lk. begins. The Herods were Idumzans by birth,} 
though Jews by religion, and were dependent upon the Romans 
for their sovereignty. -As Tacitus says: Regnum ab Antonio 
Herodi datum victor Augustus auxit (Hist. v. 9. 3). 


The name ‘Hp¢dns is contracted from “Hpwl5ys, and should have iota sub- 
script, which is well supported by early inscriptions. Later inscriptions and 
coins omit the iota. In the Codex Ambroszanus of J.sephus the name is 
written with iota adscript, Hpwidys (Azt. xi.—-xx.). See the numerous 
instances from inscriptions cited by Schiirer in the 7heo/. Lztztg. 1892, No. 
21, col. 516. The ro# inserted before Bacihéws in A and other texts is in 
accordance with classical usage. But in LXX the art. is commonly omitted 
in such cases, because in Hebrew, as in English, “Saul, king of Israel,’ 
“George, king of Pagid) is the common idiom (Gen. xiv. I, 2, 18, xx. 2, 
xxvi. I, etc. etc.). See Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 47. 


Baothas tis “loudaias. This was the title conferred on him by 
the Senate at the request of Antony, Messala, and Atratinus (Jos. 
Ant. xiv. 14. 4). Judzea here may mean “the land of the Jews, 
Palestine” (vii. 17, xxili. 5; Acts ii. 9, x. 37, xi. 1, 29). Besides 
Judzea in the narrower sense, Herod’s dominions included Samaria, 
Galilee, a great deal of Perzea, and Coele-Syria. For the abundant 
literature on the Herods see D.Z.? i. p. 1341; Herzog, PRZ.? vi. 
Pp. 47; Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. i. 1, p. 400. 

iepeds Tis dvépatt Zaxapias. In the Protevangelium of James 
(viii.), Zacharias is called high priest; and this has been adopted by 
later writers, who have supposed that the incident narrated by Lk. 
took place on the Day of Atonement in the Holy of Holies. But 
the high priest would not have been called iepevs ts, and it could 
not have been by /of (éAaxe) that he offered incense on the Day of 
Atonement. Priestly descent was much esteemed. The name 
means ‘‘ Remembered by Jehovah.” For évépatt see on v. 27. 

e€ épypepias “ABid. The word édypepia has two meanings: 
1. “service for a term of days” (Neh. xiii. 30; 1 Chron. xxv. 8; 
2 Chron. xiii. 10); 2. ‘fa course of priests who were on duty for a 
term of days,” viz. for a week (1 Chron. xxii. 6, xxviii. 13; 1 Esdr. 
i. 2,15). These courses were also called duarpécers, and by Josephus 
matpiat and épypepides (Anz. vii. 14. 7; Vita, i.). Abijah was de- 
scended from Eleazar, and gave his name to the eighth of the 
twenty-four courses into which David divided the priests (1 Chron. 
xxiv. 10; 2 Chron. viii.14). Of these twenty-four only the courses 
of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim returned from captivity 
(Ezra ii. 36-39); but these four were divided again into twenty- 

1 Tempus quoque Herodis aliegene videlicet regis etiam tpsum Domenico 


attestatur adventui. Predictum namque fuerat, guia non defictet princeps ex 
Juda, Tonec veniat qui mitiendus erat (Bede). 


L 5, 6.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 9 


four with the old names. So that Zacharias did not belong to the 
original course of Abijah, for that did not return from exile. Each 
course was on duty twice during the year; but we know far too 
little about the details of the arrangement to derive any sure chron- 
ology from the statements made by Lk. See on ii. 7. 


Wieseler places the vision of Zacharias early in October A.U.Cc. 748 or B.C. 6 
(Chron. Syn. ii. 2, Eng. tr. p. 123). With this result Edersheim agrees (Z. and 
T. i. p. 135), as also does Andrews (L. of our Lord, p. 52, ed. 1892). Lewin 

refers May 16th, B.c. 7 (Fastz Sacrz, 836). Caspari is for July 18th, B.c. 3, 

ut remarks ‘‘ how little reliance is to be placed upon conclusions of this kind” 
(Chron. Eznl. § 42, Eng. tr. p. 57). For the courses of priests, see Herzog, 
PRE. art. Priestertum im A.T.; Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. 
ji. I, pp. 216-220. 


yurh aire éx tav buyatépwy ’"Aapdv. “ He had a wife,” not “his 
wife was” (AV.). Lk. follows LXX in omitting the art. with the 
gen. after @vydrnp: comp. xili. 16 and the quotations Mt. xxi. 5 
and Ja. xii. 15, and contrast Mt. xiv. 6. To be a priest and 
married to a priest’s daughter was a double distinction. It was a 
common summary of an excellent woman, ‘She deserves to marry 
a priest.” In the fullest sense John was of priestly birth. See 
Wetst.: Sacrosancta precursoris nobilitas non solum a parentibus, 
sed etiam a progenitoribus gloriosa descendit (Bede). Aaron’s wife 
was Elisabeth = Elisheba = “ God is my oath.” 

6. Sixator. Once a term of high praise, and meaning righteous- 
ness in the fullest sense (Ezek. xviii. 5, 9, 11, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26); 
but it had come to mean little more than careful observance of 
legal duties. The addition of the Hebraistic évavriov tod Ocod 
(Acts viii. 21; Gen. vi. 8, 11, 13, Vil. I, xX. 9) gives dixacor its full 
meaning: Zacharias and Elisabeth were saints of the O.T. type. 
Symeon is called Sixaos (ii. 25), and Joseph (Mt. i. 19). Comp. 
Sixawov <lval pw 6 vopos H dios O apa wapetye TH Oecd (Eur. Lon. 
643). The Gospel was to restore to Sixasos its original spiritual 
meaning. See detached note on ¢he word Sixavos and its cognates, 
Rom. 1.17. For dydtepor see on v. 7. 

Topeudpevor ev Tacats Tats évTohats Kal Sikardpacwt.x. Another 
Hebraism (Deut. xxviii. 9; 1 Sam. viii. 3, 5; 1 Kings iii. 14, etc.). 
The distinction often drawn, that évrodat are moral, while dixaw- 

_ pata are ceremonial, is baseless; the difference is, that the latter 
is the vaguer term. Here, although they differ in gender, they 
have only one article and adjective, decause they are so similar in 
meaning. Comp. Col. ii. 22; Rev. v. 12; and see Win. xix. 3 ¢, 
p. 157. The two words are found combined Gen. xxvi. 5 and 
Deut. iv. 40. For 8txarépara, “things declared right, ordinances,” 
comp. Rom. ii. 26 and Heb. ix. 1, and see note in Sf. Comm. on 
1 Cor. v. 6 as to the force of the termination -ua. The genitive 
here, as in Rom. ii. 26 and viii. 4, expresses the authority from 


10 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [L 6-8. 


- which the ordinance springs. The dpepmro. anticipates what 
follows, and, of course, does not mean that they were sinless. No 
one is sinless; but the conduct of some is free from reproach. 
Comp. Phil. iii. 6. 

7 Kal odx fv adtois téxvov. This calamity is grievous to all 
Orientals, and specially grievous to Jews, each of whom is ambitious 
of being among the progenitors of the Messiah. It was commonly 
believed to be a punishment for sin (Lev. xx. 20, 21; Jer. xxii. 30). 
The story of Glaucus, who tempted the oracle at Delphi, and “at 
the present time has not a single descendant” (Hdt. vi. 86. 16), 
indicates a similar belief among the Greeks. Zacharias and 
Elisabeth had the sorrow of being childless, as Anna of being 
husbandless, and all three had their consolation. Comp. the 
births of Samson and Samuel, both of whom were Nazirites, and 
of Isaac. 


xa0ét.. Peculiarto Lk. ‘‘ Because that” (xix. 9; Acts ii. 24, xvii. 31), 
or “according as” (Acts ii. 45, iv. 35). In class. Grk. editors commonly 
Write xa0’ 87. The clause cal dupérepo . . . Foav does not depend upon 
xa@ért, which would be illogical, but is a separate statement. Their age 
would not explain why they had had no children, but why they were not likely 
tohave any. ‘‘ They had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren ; and 
they were both advanced in years,” so that they had no hope of children. 


tmpoBeBynkdtes ev tals Hpépats adtay. Hebraistic: in class. Grk. 
we should rather have had 77 jAuKia. In LXX we have mpoPeB. 
Hpépats, OF Hepwr, Or Tov Huepwv (1 Kings i. 1; Gen. xxiv. 1; Josh. 
xili. 1). Levites were superannuated at about sixty, but a priest 
served as long as he was able. 


8. *Eyévero . . » €Aaxe. On the various constructions with éyévero in 
Lk. see detached note at the end of this chapter; and on év T@ tepatevev 
avtév, “while he was officiating as priest,” which is another very favourite 
construction with Lk., see on iii. 21. The verb leparevew is freq. in LXX, 
but occurs nowhere else in N.T. It is not found earlier than LXX, but is not 
rare in later Greek. See Kennedy, SourcesofN.T. Grk. p. 119. The phrase 
Kata Td eos is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (ii. 42, xxii. 39), but occurs in Theod. 
Bel 15; and @os occurs ten times in his writings, and only twice elsewhere 
(Jn. xix. 40; Heb. x. 25). Comp. xara 76 el@copévoy (ii. 27) and kara 70 eiwOds 
(iv. 16; Acts xvii. 2). It is for the sake of those who were unfamiliar with the 
usages of the temple that he says that it was ‘‘according to the custom of the 
priest’s service” that it was decided by lot which priest should offer incense. 
To take xara 7d 200s Tis leparias with what precedes robs it of all point; it is 
tautology to say that he was officiating as priest according to the custom of she 
priest’s service. But the number of cases in which Lk. has a clause or word 
which is grammatically amphibolous is very large; vv. 25, 27, ii. 22, where 
see note. Tie word leparela occurs in N.T. only here and Heb. vii. 5. ‘‘In 
relation to lepwovvn (Heb. vii. 11, 12, 24) it expresses the actual service of 
the priests, and not the office of priesthood” (Wsctt. on Heb. vii. 5). 


Zhaxe Tod Ouprdcar. The casting of lots took place twice a day, 
at the morning and the evening offering of incense. In the morn- 


1 8-11.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY Il 


ing the drawing lots for offering the incense was the third and chief 
of a series of drawings, four in all; in the evening it was the only 
one. We do not know whether this was morning or evening. No 
priest might have this honour twice; and the number of priests 
was so great that many never offered the incense. The fortunate 
lot was a Wjdos Aevxy, to which there is a possible reference 
Rev. ii. 17. The priest who obtained it chose two others to help 
him ; but, when they had done their part, they retired, leaving him 
alone in the Holy Place. For the very elaborate details see 
Edersh. Zhe Temple, its Ministry and Services, pp. 129-142. 


The gen. Tod @uutGoat is probably governed by €\axe, which in class. Grk. 
commonly has a gen. when it means “‘ became possessed of,” and an acc. 
when it means ‘‘ obtained by lot” (Acts i. 17; comp. 2 Pet. i. 1). In 1 Sam. 
xiv. 47 we have Zaovd éhaxe [a/. 7. kataxAnpotra] Tod Bacidevew él Iopa7r. 
The eloed Ow els Tov vady must be taken with 6uydca, not with Gaye: “he 
obtained by lot to go in and burn incense,” not ‘‘after entering into the vads 
he obtained by lot to burn incense.” The lots were cast d¢fore he entered the 
Holy Place, which was the front part of the vadés. 


10. wav 75 TAHO0s Fv TOG Aaod mpoceuxspevov. Cod. Am. has the 
same order, omnis multitudo erat populi orans. ‘The position of 
tov Aaod is against taking jv with zpocevydmevov as the analytical 
tense instead of the imperf., a constr. of which Lk. is very fond 
(ga. 20, 21, 22, il. 33, iv. 17, 31, 38, 44, etc.); qv may mean 
“was there,” or “there was,” and rod Aaod be epexegetic of 76 
mAnGos. But certainty is unattainable and unimportant. We need 
not infer from wav 76 7AAOos that there was a great multitude. As 
compared with the solitary priest in the vaés, all the worshippers 
outside were a 7A7jG0s. The word is a favourite one with Lk., who 
uses it twenty-five times against seven in the rest of N.T. It is 
remarkable that prayer is not expressly mentioned in the Law as 
part of public worship, except in connexion with the offering of the 
first-fruits (Deut. xxvi. 15). But comp. 1 Kings viii. 33-48; 
2 Chron. vi. 14-42; Is. lvi. 7. The people were inside the iepdy, 
although outside (é£w) the vads, and the other priests would be 
between them and the vads. 

11. GhOn S€ adt@ GyyeAos Kupiov. It was the most solemn 
moment of his life, when he stood alone in that sacred spot to offer 
the pure and ideal symbol of the imperfect prayer which he and 
those outside were offering. The unique circumstances contri- 
buted to make him conscious of that unseen world which is around 
all of us (2 Kings vi. 17; comp. Lk. xv. 7, 10). For éf6y see on 
xxil. 43; and for an analysis of the psychological facts see Lange, 
L. of Christ, bk. ii. pt. i. § 2; Eng. tr. i. 264. But must we not 
choose between admitting an objective appearance and rejecting 
the whole asa myth? To explain it as a “false perception” or 
optical delusion, z.e. a purely subjective result of psychological 


12 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE ([L 11-18. 


causes, seems to be not admissible. In that case Zacharias, like Lord 
Herbert of Cherbury,! would have accepted the sign which he sup- 
posed that he had received. To believe in the reality of a subject- 
ive appearance and not believe its testimony is a contradiction. 
Moreover, the psychological explanation leaves the dumbness to be 
explained. Again, we have similar appearances ver. 26, il. 9, 13, 
XXli. 43, xxiv. 4. Can we accept here an explanation which is very 
difficult (ii. 9, 13) or inadmissible (xxiv. 4) elsewhere? Are all 
these cases of false perception? See Paley, Evidences of Christt- 
anity, prop. ii. ch. i.; Mill, Panthetstic Principles, ii. 1. 4, p. 123, 
2nd ed. 1861; Edersh. Z. & Z. i. p. 142, il. p. 751. 

ex Se€iwy Tod Quctactypiov. The place of honour. It was “the 
right side of the altar,” not of Zacharias, who was facing it. Comp. 
Acts vii. 55, 56. The right side was the south side, and the Angel 
would be between the altar and the golden candlestick. On the 
left, or north side, of the altar was the table with the shewbread. 

12. pdBos émémecey én attév. Fear is natural when man be- 
comes suddenly conscious of contact with the unseen: Humane 
Jragilitatis est spiritualis creature visione turbari (Bede). Comp. 
ii. 9, 1X. 343 Judg. vi. 22, xili. 22; Job iv. 15, etc. For the phrase 
comp. Acts xix. 17; Exod. xv. 16; Judith xv. 2. In class. Grk. 
the dat. is more usual: Thuc. iii. 87. 1; Xen. Azad. ii. 2.19; Eur. 
Andr. 1042. 

18. cimev S¢ mpds adtév. Both eizev dé and cizev rpos are very 
freq. in Lk., who prefers e«izev d€ to xal eizev even at the beginning 
of narratives, and uses zpds avrov, avrovs, x... in preference to 
aiTG, avrois, x.7.A., after verbs of speaking, answering, etc., to an 
extent which is quite remarkable (vv. 18, 19, 34, 55, 61, 73, 
ii. 15, 18, 20, 34, 48, 49, etc. etc.). This pds is so strong a mark 
of his style that it should be distinguished in translation: etrev 
mpos abrov, ‘He said unzo him,” and «trey airé, “ He said Zo him.” 
But not even RV. does this. 

Mi) dood. This gracious charge is specially common in Lk. 
(ver. 30, ii. 10, Vili. 50, xii. 4, 7, 323; Acts xviii. 9, xxvii. 24). 
Bengel says of it, Primum alloquium celeste in aurora NV.T. per 
Lucam amenissime descripta. Comp. Gen. xv. 1; Josh. viil. 1; 
Is. xliii. 1, 5, xliv. 2; Jer. xlvi. 27, 28; Dan. x. 12. 

Sidr. “ Because,” as generally in N.T. Comp. ii. 7, xxi. 28. 
It never means “therefore”; not Rom. i. 19 nor 1 Thes. ii 18. 

eionkova0n 4 Sénois cov. “ Thy supplication was heard,” at the 
time when it was offered. The pass. is used both of the petition 
(Acts x. 31; Ps. iv. 2) and of the petitioner (Mt. vi. 7; Heb. v. 7). 
The word déyous implies Zersonal need ; it is a “special petition for 
the supply of want” (Lft. on Phil. iv. 6; Trench, Svz. li). Un- 
like mpooevyy, it may be used of petitions to men The word’ 

1 Life, written by himself, sed fin., pp. 171 ff. ed. 1792, pp. 24: ff. ed. 1824. 


L 18, 14.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 13 


favours, but by no means proves, the view that the prayer of 
Zacharias was fora son. And the context at first seems to con 
firm this. But would Zacharias have made his private wishes the 
main subject of his prayer at so unique an opportunity? Would 
he have prayed for what he regarded as impossible? As Bede 
remarks, Vemo orat quod se accepturum desperat. Having prayed 
for it as possible, would he have refused to believe an Angel who 
told him that the petition was granted? It is much more probable 
that he and the people were praying for the redemption of Israel,— 
for the coming of the Messiah’s kingdom ; and it is this supplica- 
tion which was heard. To make déyous refer to habitual suppli- 
cation, and not to the prayer offered with the incense, seems 
unnatural. 


What Didon points out (p. 298) in quite a different connexion seems to 
have point here. It was an axiom with the Rabbins that a prayer in which 
there was no mention of the kingdom of God was no prayer at all (Bady/., 
Beracoth, fol. 40, 2); and in the ritual of the temple the response of the 
people to the prayers of the priests was, ‘‘ Blessed be the name of the glory of 
the Kingdom of God for ever” (Babyl., Taanzth, fol. 16, 2): Jésus Chrést, 
ed. 1891. See also Edersh. Zhe Temple, p. 127. 


kai % yur gou “EderodBer yervyoer uidv co. Not 7 yuvy yap. 
“ For thy wife shall bear thee a son” would have made it clear 
that the son was the answer to the déyous. But “and thy wife 
shall bear thee a son” may mean that this is an additional boon, 
which (as ver. 17 shows) is to prepare the way for the blessing 
prayed for and granted. Thus, like Solomon, Zacharias receives 
the higher blessing for which he prayed, and also the lower blessing 
for which he did not pray. 


Tevvdw is generally used of the father (Mt. i. 1-16; Acts vii. 8, 29; Gen. 
v. 3-30, xi. 10-28, etc.) ; but sometimes of the mother (ver. 57, xxiii. 293 
Jn. xvi. 21). The best authorities give "Iwdvys, with only one » (WH. ii. 
App. p. 159). In LXX we have “Iwdyys (2 Chron. xxviii. 12); "Iwdvap 
2 Chron. xvii. 15; Neh. xii. 13); ’Iwvdv (Neh. vi. 18); "Iwvd (2 Kings 
XXV. 23; comp. Jn. xxi. 15-17). All these forms are abbreviations of Jeho- 
hanan, ‘‘ Jehovah’s gift,” or ‘‘ God is gracious.” Gotthold is a German name 
of similar meaning. It was a Rabbinical saying that the names of six were 
given before they were born—Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and 
Messiah. 


14. woddot ent TH yevéoer adtod xaphoovrat, With the wodXot 
here contrast wavri 7@ Aad in ii. 10. The joy at the appearance of 
a Prophet after centuries of need was immense, although not uni- 
versal. The Pharisees did not dare to say that John was not a 
Prophet (Mt. xxi. 26); and Herod, until driven to it, did not dare 
to put him to death (Mt. xiv. 5). The word dyaAA~acrs means 
“extreme joy, exultation.” It is not class., but is freq. in LXX. 
Elsewhere in N.T. only ver. 44; Acts ii. 46; Jude 24; Heb. i. g 
(from Ps. xliv. 8). 


14 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO -S. LUKE [I. 14, 15. 


In class. Grk. xalpeww more often has the simple dat., but émé is usual in 
N.T. (xiii. 17; Acts xv. 31; Mt. xviii. 13, etc.). It marks the daszs of the 


joy. The reading yervjoe (G XT) for yevéoe (NX A BC D) probably comes 
from yevyjcet in ver. 13. 


15. Eorar yap wéyas évdmov [rod] Kuptov. For he shall be great 
in the truest sense of the term. Whatsoever a character man has 
before God, of that character he really is. 


The adj. évwzios is found in Theocr. (xxii. 152) and i in LXXx, but évdrov 
as a prep. seems to be confined to LXX and N.T. It is not in Mt. or Mk., 
but is specially freq. in Lk. (v2. 17, 19, 75, iv. 7, v. 18, 25, etc.), as also 
in Rev. The phrase évywziov rod xuplov or Oeod is a Hebraism (xii. 6, xvi. 155 


Acts iv. 19, vil. 46, x. 31, 3353 Judg. xi. II; I Sam. x. 19; 2 Sam. Ve 35 
vi. 5). The preposition retains this meaning in modern Greek. 


oivoy Kal oikepa of ph min. He is te drink neither wine nor 
any intoxicating liquor other than wine. The same Hebrew word 
is rendered sometimes oikepa, sometimes peOvopa, and sometimes 
gixepa pébvopa (Lev. x. 9; Num. vi. 3; Judg. xiii. 4, 7, 14). 
Wiclif here has “ne wine ne syder.” See D.B.2 art. “ Drink, 
Strong.” John is to be a Nazirite, not only for a time, as was 
usual, but for all his life, as Samson and Samuel. This is not 
disproved by the omission of the command not to cut his hair 
(Edersh. Zhe Tempe, p. (322). Eusebius (Prep. Evang. vi. 10. 8) 
has gen. oikepos, and ouxépuros is also quoted ; but oikepa is usually 
undeclined. 

Tvetparos dytou whyoPycetat. This is in obvious contrast to 
olvov Kal _oikepa. In place of the physical excitement of strong 
drink he is to have the supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 
The whole phrase is peculiar to Lk. (vv. 41, 67; Acts ii. 4, 
iv. 8, 31, 1x. 17, xili. 9); and the two elements of it are specially 
characteristic of him. Excepting Mt. xxii. ro, xxvii. 48; Jn. 
XIX. 29, {uaAnut Occurs Only in Lk., who uses it twenty-two times. 
Mt. has the expression “ Holy Spirit ” five times, Mk. and Jn. each 
four times. Lk. has it fifty-three times, of which twelve are in the 
Gospel. He uses three forms: mvdpa dyvov (i. 15, 35, 455 67, 
[ii. 25)] iil. 16, iv. I, Xl. 13); 70 dytov wvedpa (xi, To, 12); and 76 
mvevpa TO ayLov (it 26, iii, 22). According to Schoettgen (i. 
P. 255), “to be filled with the Holy Spirit is” locutio Judzis famtlt- 
aris. He gives one example. Comp. the contrast in Eph. v. 18. 


étu é« Kowdlas pntpds attov. A Hebraism (Ps. xxii. 11, lxxi. 6; Is. 
xlix. i. 5: comp. Judg. xiii. 5, 7, xvi. 17; Job xxxi. 18, etc.); instead of 
the more classical éx yeverijs, with or without ev6us (Hom. //. XxIv. 535, Od. 
xviii. 6; Arist. £th. Wie. vi. 13. I, vil. I4. 4, villi. 12. 6). For the ére 
comp. tr ék Bpégeos, ért arr” apxijs, ért Kal éx mapévrwv, where é7t seems to 
mean ‘‘even.” The expression does not imply that John was filled with the 
Spirit before he was born (ver. 41). In LXX xouAla is often used of the 
womb (see esp. Jer. i. 5); but this is very rare in class. Grk. 


1 16, 17.| THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 15 


16, 17. The two personal characteristics just stated—subjection 
of the flesh and sovereignty of the spirit—will manifest themselves 
in two external effects,—a great religious revival and the prepara- 
tion for the Messianic kingdom. The first of these was the 
recognized work of every Prophet. Israel, through sin, was con- 
stantly being alienated from God; and it was one of the chief 
functions of a Prophet to convert the people to God again (Jer. 
iii. 7, 10, 14, xvili. 8; Ezek. iii. 19; Dan. ix. 13). 


wat aités. The personal pronouns are much more used in N.T. than in 
class. Grk., esp. in the oblique cases. But even in the nom. the pronoun is 
sometimes inserted, although there is little or no emphasis. Lk. is very fond 
of beginning sentences with xal airés, even where aérés can hardly mean 
“She on his part,” as distinct from others (iii. 23, v. 14, 17, vi. 20, etc.). In 
wpoeXevoerat we have another mark of Lk.’sstyle. Excepting Mk. vi. 33 
and 2 Cor. ix. §, the verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xxii. 47; Acts xii. 10, 
XX. 5, 13). 


évdmov aitos. ‘Before God,” who comes to His people in 
the person of the Messiah (Is. xl. 1-11; Mal. iii. 1-5). It is 
unlikely that airod means the Messiah, who has not yet been 
mentioned. There is no analogy with avrés éda, ipse dixit, where 
the pronoun refers to some one so well known that there is no 
need to mention him by name. For évdmuoy see on ver. 15; and 
for Suvapis, on iv. 14, 36. Elijah is mentioned, not as a worker of 
miracles, for “John did no sign” (Jn. x. 41), but as a preacher of 
repentance: it was in this that the Baptist had his spirit and 
power. For Rabbinic traditions respecting Elijah as the Fore- 
runner see Edersh. Z. & T. ii. p. 706. 


The omission of the articles before rvevyar: and duvdue is probably due 
to the influence of an Aramaic original, in which the gen. which follows 
would justify the omission. Proper names in -as pure commonly have gen. 
in -ov (Mt. 1. 6, iii. 3); but here Hyela is the true reading. 


émotpépat kapdias tatépwy éxt téxva. The literal interpretation 
here makes good sense, and perhaps, on the whole, it is the best. 
In the moral degradation of the people even parental affection had 
languished: comp. Ecclus. xlvili. 10. Genuine reform strengthens 
family ties; whatever weakens them is no true reform. Or the 
meaning may be that the patriarchs will no longer be ashamed of 
their offspring: comp. Is. Ixiii. 16. In any case, dmeifeis is not to 
be referred to réxva. It is not the disobedience of children to 
parents that is meant, but that of the Jews to God. 


The Vulg. renders dre:@ets by incredibiles, for which some MSS. have 
incredulos: comp. dissoctabzlis, penetrabilis for adjectives in -d7/s with this 
force. Lat. Vet. varies: zneruditos (f), non consentientes (d), contumaces (e). 

& dpovycer Sixaiwy. The prep. of rest after a verb of motion expresses 
the result of the motion (viii. 17; Mt. xiv. 3): ‘*Turn them so as fo de in 
the wisdom >f the just.” For gpéynois see Lft. on Col. i. g: the word 


16 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [1 17-19. 


occurs only here and Eph. i. 8in N.T. De Wette, Bleek, and others main- 
tain that ¢péynots here means simply ‘‘ disposition,” Gesézzmung. In what 
follows it is better to make érowudcar dependent upon émorpéya, not 
co-ordinate with it. The preparation is the consequence of the conversion, 
and the final object of the mpoekevoerar: ne Dominus populum tmparatum 
majestate sua obterat (Beng.). 


18. Kata ti yvécopat todto; The very question asked by 
Abraham (Gen. xv. 8): “In accordance with what shall I obtain 
knowledge of this?” #e¢. What shall be in harmony with it, so as 
to be a sign of it? Comp. the cases of Gideon (Judg. vi. 36-39) 
and of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 8), who asked for signs; also of 
Moses (Exod. iv. 2-6) and of Ahaz (Is. vii. 11), to whom signs 
were given unasked. The spirit in which such requests are made 
may vary much, although the form of request may be the same, 
and the fact that Zacharias had all these instances to instruct him 
made his unbelief the less excusable. By his éy@ ydp ety, x.7.A., he 
almost implies that the Angel must have forgotten the fact. 


19. Groxpilels 6 Gyyehos ciev. In Attic droxplyowas, in Homeric and 
Tonic droxplyouat, is used in the sense of ‘‘answering.” In N.T. broxpl- 
vouot occurs only once (xx. 20), and there of ‘‘acting a part,” not ‘‘ answer- 
ing”: comp. 2 Mac. v. 25. But dsoxpiOels for the class. dmoxpwdpevos 
(which is rare in N.T.) marks the decay of the middle voice. In bibl. Grk. 
the middle voice is dying ; in mod. Grk. it is dead. Machon, a comic poet 
about B.c. 250, is perhaps the earliest writer who uses daexpl@yy like 
dmexpivdunv in the sense of ‘‘replied, answered.” In LXX, as in N.T., 
dwexpwapny is rare (Judg. v. 29 [A]; 1 Kings ii. 13 1 Chron. x. 13). See 
Veitch, Greck Verbs, p. 78. 


19. "Eyd eipt FaBpmr. Gabriel answers his éyd eiwe with 
another. “Thou art old, and not likely to have children, but 
I am one whose word is to be believed”: dyyéAw amuoteis, kat 7a 
aroareihavtt (Eus.). The names of two heavenly beings are given 
us in Scripture, Gabriel (Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21) and Michael (Dan. 
X. 13, 21, xii. 1; Jude 9; Rev. xii. 7); other names were given in 
the later Jewish tradition. It is one thing to admit that such 
names are of foreign origin, quite another to assert that the belief 
which they represent is an importation. Gabriel, the “Man of 
God,” seems to be the representative of angelic ministry to man ; 
Michael, ‘ Who is like God,” the representative of angelic opposi- 
tion to Satan. In Scripture Gabriel is the angel of mercy, Michael 
the angel of judgment. In Jewish legend the reverse is the case, 
proving that the Bible does not borrow Jewish fables. In the 
Targums Gabriel destroys Sennacherib’s army; in the O.T. he 
instructs and comforts Daniel. The Rabbis said that Michael flies 
in one flight, Gabriel in two, Elijah in four, and Death in eight ; 
fe. mercy is swifter than judgment, and judgment is swifter than 
destruction. 

& mapeotnkds evdmov Tod Gcod. See on ver. 15. Gabriel is “the 


I. 19, 20.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY i7 


angel of His presence” (Is. lxiii. 9; comp. Mt. xviii. 10). “*Stand- 
ing before” implies ministering. In LXX the regular phrase is 
mapacrhvat evwrvov (Jobi. 6, which is a close parallel to this; 1 Kings 
XVil. 1, xvili. 15; 2 Kings iii. 14, v. 16). It is also used of service 
to a king (1 Kings x. 8). But when Gehazi “stood before his 
master,” we have wapeuoryKet mpos Tov KUptov adrod (2 Kings v. 25). 


Only here and ix. 27 does Lk. use the unsyncopated form of the perf. part. 
of Yornws and its compounds. Elsewhere he prefers éarws to éornKws (i. II, 
v. I, 2, xviii. 13; Acts iv. 14, vii. 55, etc.) In Mt. xxvii. 47 and Mk. ix. 
I and xi. 5, éoryxérwy is the right reading. In Jn. the unsyncopated form 
is common. 


émeotddny Aaijoat mpds cé kal edayyeNicacbat cor taita. This 
reminds Zacharias of the extraordinary favour shown to him, and 
so coldly welcomed by him. It is the first use in the Gospel 
narrative of the word which was henceforward to be so current, 
and to mean so much. In LXX it is used of any good tidings 
(2 Sam. i. 20; 1 Chron. x. 9), but especially of communications 
respecting the Messiah (Is. xl. 9, lii. 7, 1x. 6, lxi. 1). See on i. 10 
and iv. 18. 

20. kai i800 gon crwrdy Kal pi Suvdpevos Nadjoar. The idod is 
Hebraistic, but is not rare in class. Grk. It introduces something 
new with emphasis. Signum poscenti datur congruum, quamvis non 
optatum (Beng.). The analytical form of the fut. marks the dura- 
tion of the silence (comp. v. 10, vi. 40?, xvii. 35 ?, xxi. 17); and py 
Suvdpevos, x.7.A., is added to show that the silence is not a voluntary 
act, but the sign which was asked for (comp. Dan. x. 15). Thus 
his wrong request is granted in a way which is at once a judgment 
and a blessing ; for the unbelief is cured by the punishment. For 
ow7dw of dumbness comp. 4 Mac. x. 18. 


We have here one of many parallels in expression between Gospel and 
Acts. Comp. this with Acts xiii. 11; i. 39 with Acts i. 15; i. 66 with Acts 
xi. 21; ii. 9 with Acts xii. 7; xv. 20 with Acts xx. 37; xxi. 18 with Acts 
XXVil. 343 xxiv. 19 with Acts vii. 22, 

In N.T. 47 with the participle is the common constr., and in mod. Grk. 
it is the invariable use. In Lk. there is only one instance of od with a parti- 
ciple (vi. 42). See Win. lv. 5. 8, pp. 607-610; Lft. Zp. a St. Paul, p. 39, 
1895. The combination of the negative with the positive statement of the 
same thing, although found in class. Grk., is more common in Heb. literature. 
In Acts xiii. 11 we have éon Tuddds wi) Bérwy ; comp. Jn. i. 3, 20, iii. 16, 
x. 5, 18, xvilil. 20, xx. 27; Rev. ii. 13, ili. 9; Ps. Ixxxix. 30, 31, 48; 2Sam. 
xiv. 5; Is. xxxviii. I, etc. 

&Xpt hs hpépas. Gal. iii. 19 is the only certain exception to the rule 
that dypr, not &xpis, usually precedes vowels in N.T. Comp. xvii. 27, xxi. 
24, and see on xvi. 16. For the attraction, comp. Acts i. 2; Mt. xxiv. 38. 
Attractions are specially freq. in Lk. Seeoniii. 19. ~ 

av@ ov. Only in this phrase does dy7t suffer elision in N.T. It is 
equivalent to dvri rovTwy 871, ‘‘for that, because” (xix. 44; Acts xii. 23; 
2 Thes. ii. 10; Lev. xxvi. 43; 2 Kings xxii. 17; Ezek. v. 11). It is found 
in class. Grk. (Soph. Am. 1068; Aristoph. P/ut. 434). 


2 


18 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [LI 20-23 


ofties. Stronger than the simple relative: ‘which are of such a 
character that.” Comp. ii. 10, vii. 37, 39, viii. 3, 15. Almost always in nom, 

els tov Karpov aitav. That which takes place in a time may be regarded 
as entering into that time: the words go on to their fulfilment. Comp. els 7d 
BéNoy (xiii. 9) and els 7d werakd) odBBarov (Acts xiii. 42). 


QL. jv 5 Aads mpoodoxay. As in ver. 20, the analytical tense 
marks the duration of the action. Zacharias was longer than was 
customary; and the Talmud states that the priests were accustomed 
to return soon to prevent anxiety. It was feared that in so sacred 
a place they might incur God’s displeasure, and be slain (Lev. xvi. 
13). Hence éQavpatov év ta xpovitervy, “They were wondering while 
he tarried.” Comp. ver. 8, and see on iii. 21. The common 
rendering, “ a¢ his tarrying,” or “ because he tarried,” guod tardaret, 
is improbable even if possible. This would have been otherwise 
expressed: éOavpalov émi (ii. 33, iv. 22, ix. 43, etc.), which D reads - 
here; or dia (Mk. vi. 6; Jn. vii. 21); or Sze (xi. 385; Jn. iii. 7, iv. 
27); Or epi (ii. 18). 

22. odk eduvato Nahijoar adtois. He ought to pronounce the 
benediction (Num. vi. 24-26) from the steps, either alone or with 
other priests. His look and his inability to speak told them at 
once that something extraordinary had taken place ; and the sacred 
circumstances would suggest a supernatural appearance, even if his 
signs did not make this clear to them. 


The compound éréyvwoay implies clear recognition and full knowledge 
(v. 22, xxiv. 16, 31); and the late form émtactay (for dyxv) is commonly used 
of supernatural sights (xxiv. 23; Acts xxvi. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 1; Dan. ix. 23, 
x. I, 7, 8, 16). For kal avrds, “‘he on his part,” as distinct from the con- 
gregation, see on ver. 17, and Win. xxii. 4. b, p. 187. The periphrastic tense 
jv Suavevwv again calls attention to the continued action. The verb is found 
here only in N.T., but occurs twice in LXX (Ps. xxxiv. 19; Ecclus. xxvii. 
22). In Stduerve kapds both the compound and the tense emphasize the fact 
that it was no mere temporary seizure (xxii. 28; Gal. ii. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 4). 


28. ds ewryjoOyoav at Hpepar THs Aevtoupytas adtos. When the 
week for which the course of Abijah was on duty for public service 
was at an end. See on v.15 and 57. In class. Grk. Aeroupyia 
(Xeds, Epyov) is freq. of public service undertaken by a citizen at 
his own expense. In bibl. Grk. it is used of priestly service in the 
worship of God (Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21; Num. viii. 22, xvi. 9, xviii. 4; 
2 Chron. xxxi. 2), and also of service to the needy (2 Cor. ix. 12; 
Phil. ii. 30). 

daqOev ets Tdv otkov attos. This was not in Jerusalem, in the 
Ophel quarter, where many of the priests resided, but in an un- 
named town in the hill-country south of Jerusalem (ver. 39). It is 
probable that most of the priests who did not live in the city itself 
resided in the towns and villages in the neighbourhood. Con- 
venience would suggest that they should live inside Judea. In 
Neh. xi. 10-19 we have 1192 priests in Jerusalem ; in 1 Chron. ix 


I, 23-25.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 19 


13 we have 1760. Later authorities speak of 24,000; but such 
figures are very untrustworthy. The whole question of the resi- 
dences of the priests is an obscure one, and Josh. xxi. must not be 
quoted as evidence for more than a projected arrangement. That 
it was carried into effect and maintained, or that it was revived after 
the Exile, is a great deal more than we know. Schiirer, Jewish 
People in the T. of J. C. ii. 1, p. 229. 

24, cuvé\aBev. The word occurs eleven times in Lk. against 
five times elsewhere. He alone uses it in the sense of conceiving 
offspring, and only in these first two chapters (vv. 31, 36, ii. 21). 
This sense is common in medical writers and in Aristotle. Hobart 
remarks that the number of words referring to pregnancy and 
barrenness used by Lk. is almost as great as that used by Hippo- 
crates: év yaorpl éxewv (xxi. 23), €yxvos (ii. 5), oretpa (i. 7), drexvos 
(xx. 28). And, excepting év yaorpi éxev, all of these are peculiar 
to himself in N.T. (Zed. Lang. of LR. p. 91). 

meptexpuBev éautyy pivas wévte. The reflexive pronoun brings 
out more forcibly than the middle voice would have done that the 
act was entirely her own (Acts xxiii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 31; 1 Jn. i. 8); 
and the compound verb implies a// round, complete concealment. 
Her motive can only be conjectured ; but the enigmatical conduct 
and remark are evidence of historic truth, for they would not be 
likely to be invented. The five months are the first five months ; 
and at the end of them it would be evident that she had ceased 
to be % oretpa (ver. 36). During these five months she did not 
wish to risk hearing a reproach, which had ceased to be true, but 
which she would not care to dispute. She withdrew, therefore, 
until all must know that the reproach had been removed. 


The form éxpvBoy is late: in class. Grk. Expuya is used. But a present 
xpUBw is found, of which this might be the imperfect. 

It can hardly be accidental that my is scarcely ever used in N.T. in a 
literal sense by any writer except Lk., who has it five times in his 
and five times in the Acts. The chronological details involved in thi 
frequent use are the results of the careful investigation of which he writes in 
the preface. The other passages are Gal. iv. 10; Jas. v. 17, and six times 
oS aa So also éros occurs fifteen times in Lk. and six in Mt. Mk. 
and Jn. 


25. émeidev ddedetv Sverdds pou ev dvOpdros. The object of 
ércidey is neither éué understood (as all English Versions except 
Wic. and Rhem.) nor 76 dveidés pov (Hofmann), but ddedciy: 
“watched to take away, taken care to remove.” The constr. seems 
to be unique; but comp. Acts xv. 14. Alford and Holtzmann 
translate “hath designed, condescended to remove”; but can 
éetdev mean that? Elsewhere in N.T. it occurs only Acts iv. 29; 
but in class. Grk. it is specially used of the gods regarding human 
affairs (Aesch. Suppl. 1. 1031; Sept. 485). Hdt. «124. 2 is not 


20 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [L 2%, 26. 


rightly quoted as parallel. Omitting éweidev, Rachel makes the 
same remark: “AdeiAev 6 @eds prov 76 dveidos (Gen. xxx. 23 ; comp. 
Ps. cxiii. 9; Is. iv. 1); but the different position of the pov is 
worth noting. In é& dvOpwros we have another amphibolous 
expression (see on ver. 8). It may be taken with ddeAciv, but 
more probably it belongs to 76 évetdds pov (ver. 36). 


26-88. Zhe Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour. 


The birth of the Baptist is parallel to the birth of Isaac; that 
of the Messiah to the creation of Adam. Jesus is the second 
Adam. But once more there is no violent breach with the past. 
Even in its revolutions Providence is conservative. Just as the 
Prophet who is to renovate Israel is taken from the old priesthood, 
so the Christ who is to redeem the human race is not created out 
of nothing, but “ born of a woman.” 


26. eis modu THs TodtNatas 4 dvopa Nafapér. The description 
perhaps implies that Lk. is writing for those who are not familiar 
with the geography of Palestine. There is no reason for believing 
that he himself was unfamiliar with it. Comp. ver. 39, iv. 31, 
Vil. /I1, Vill.''26, 1X. 10, XVI. EL, 31%29;/37, 40 


Galilee is one of many geographical names which have gradually extended 
their range. It was originally a little ‘‘circuit” of territory round Kadesh- 
Naphtali containing the towns given by Solomon to Hiram (1 Kings ix. 11). 
This was called the ‘‘circuit of the Gentiles,” because the inhabitants were 
strangers (I Mac. v. 15, Tad. dd\d\oPiAwy). But it grew, until in the time of 
Christ it included the territory of Naphtali, Asher, Zebulon, and Issachar 
(D.Z.7 i. p. 1117). For a description of this region see Jos. B. /. iii. 3. 1-3. 
Nazareth is mentioned neither in O.T. nor in Josephus, but it was probably 
not a new town in our Lord’s time. The site is an attractive one, in a basin 
among the south ridges of Lebanon. The sheltered valley is very fruitful, and 
abounds in flowers. From the hill behind the town the view over Lebanon, 
Hermon, Carmel, the Mediterranean, Gilead, Tabor, Gilboa, the plain of 
Esdraelon, and the mountains of Samaria, is very celebrated (Renan, Vze de /. 
p- 27). It would seem as if Mt. (ii. 23) was not aware that Nazareth was the 
original home of Joseph and Mary. 





1¢°Tt has been argued that the different modes in which God is recorded to 
have communicated with men, in St. Matthew by dreams and in St. Luke by 
Angels, show the extent of the subjective influence of the writer’s mind upon 
the narrative. But surely those are right who see in this difference the use of 
various means adapted to the peculiar state of the recipient. Moreover, as St. 
Matthew recognizes the ministry of Angels (xxviii. 2), so St. Luke relates 
Visions (Acts x. 9-16, xvi. 9, xviii. 9, 10). . . . It is to be noticed that the 
contents of the divine messages (Matt. i. 20, 21; Luke i. 30-33) are related 
conversely to the general character of tne Gospels, as a consequence of the 
difference of character in those to whom they are addressed. The promise of 
Redemption is made to Joseph ; of a glorious Kingdom to the Virgin” (Wsctt. 
Int. to Gospels, p. 317, 7th ed.). 


I. 26-28.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 21 


The form of the name of the town varies much, between Nazareth, Nazaret, 
Nazara, and Nazarath. Keim has twice contended strongly for Nazara (/. of 
Naz., Eng. tr. ii. p. 16, iv. p. 108); but he has not persuaded many of the 
correctness of his conclusions. WH. consider that ‘‘the evidence when 
tabulated presents little ambiguity” (ii. App. p. 160). Nafapd@ is found 
frequently (eight out of eleven times) in Codex A, but hardly anywhere else. 
Nafapd is used once by Mt. (iv. 13), and perhaps once by Lk. (iv. 16). 
Nagapé@ occurs once in Mt. (xxi. 11) and once in Acts (x. 38). Everywhere 
else (Mt. ii. 23; Mk. i. 9; Lk. i. 26, ii. 4, 39, 51; Jn. i. 46, 47) we have 
certainly or probably Nafapér. Thus Mt. uses the three possible forms 
equally ; Lk. all three with a decided preference for Nazaret; while Mk. and 
Jn. use Nazaret only. This appears to be fairly conclusive for Nazaret. Yet 
Scrivener holds that ‘‘regarding the orthography of this word no reasonable 
certainty is to be attained” (Jt. ¢o Crit. of N.T. ii. p. 316); and Alford 
seems to be of a similar opinion (i. Prolegom. p. 97). Weiss thinks that 
Nazara may have been the original form, but that it had already become 
unusual when the Gospels were written. The modern town is called 2” 
Nazzrah, and is shunned by Jews. Its population of 5000 is mainly Christian, 
with a few Mahometans. 


27. éuvnoteupévnv. This is the N.T. form of the word (ii. 5): in 
LXX we have peuvyorevp. (Deut. xxii. 28). The interval between 
betrothal and marriage was commonly a year, during which the 
bride lived with her friends. But her property was vested in her 
future husband, and unfaithfulness on her part was punished, like 
adultery, with death (Deut. xxii. 23, 24). The case of the woman 
taken in adultery was probably a case of this kind. 

ef oixou Aaveid. It is unnecessary, and indeed impossible, to 
decide whether these words go with avdpi, or with wap@évoy, or 
with both. The. last is the least probable, but Chrysostom and 
Wieseler support it. From vv. 32 and 69 we may with probability 
infer that Lk. regards Mary as descended from David. In ii. 4 he 
states this of Joseph. Independently of the present verse, therefore, 
we may infer that, just as John was of priestly descent both by 
Zacharias and Elisabeth, so Jesus was of royal descent both by 
Mary and Joseph. The title “Son of David” was publicly given 
to Jesus and never disputed (Mt. i. 1, ix. 27, xil. 23, xv. 22, 
xx. 30, 31; Mk. x. 47, 48; Lk. xviii. 38, 39). In the Zest. XZZ. 
Patr. Christ is said to be descended from Zevé and Judah 
(Simeon vii.); and the same idea is found in a fragment of 
Ireneeus (frag. xvii., Stieren, p. 836). It was no doubt based, 
as Schleiermacher bases it’ (S¢. Zuke, Eng. tr. p. 28), on the fact 
that Elisabeth, who was of Levi, was related to Mary (see on 
ver. 36). The repetition involved in ts mapOévou is in favour of 
taking e& oixov Aaveid with dvdp/: otherwise we should have ex- 
pected airjs. But this is not conclusive. 

28. Xaipe, kexapitwpévyn.t Note the alliteration and the con- 

1 The Ave Maria as a liturgical address to the Virgin consists of three 


parts, two of which are scriptural and one not. The first two parts, ‘‘ Hail, 
Mary, full of grace: the Tord is ~ith thee,” and ‘‘ Blessed art thou among 


22 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 28-30. 


nexion between xafpe and xdpis. The gratiz plena of the Vulg. 
is too indefinite. It is right, if it means “full of grace, which 
thou hast reetved”; wrong, if it means “full of grace, which 
thou hast to bestow.” From Eph. i. 6 and the analogy of verbs 
IN -w, Kexapitwpévy must mean “endued with grace” (Ecclus.- 
xviii. 17). Von ut mater gratiz, sed ut filia gratie (Beng.). 
What follows explains xeyapitwpévn, for with pera cod we under- 
stand éo7, not éorw (comp. Judg. vi. 12). It is because the Lord 
is with her that she is endued with grace. Tyn., Cov., and Cran., 
no less than Wic. and Rhem., have “full of grace”; Genev. has 
“freely beloved.” 


The familiar edAoynuévn od ev yuvasély, although well attested (A C DX 
PAT, Latt. Syrr. Aeth. Goth., Tert. Eus.), probably is an interpolation 
borrowed from ver. 42: 8 BL, Aegyptt. Arm. omit. 

29. Here also léofca (A), for which some Latin texts have cum audisset, 
is an interpolation borrowed perhaps from ver. 12. It is not stated that Mary 
saw Gabriel. The pronominal use of the article (7 65é) is rare in N.T. 
(Acts i. 6; Mt. ii. 5, 9). It is confined to phrases with wév and 6é, and 
mostly to nom. masc. and fem. 


SvetapdxOy. Here only in N.T. It is stronger than érapay6n 
in ver. 12. Neither Zacharias nor Mary are accustomed to 
visions or voices: they are troubled by them. There is no 
evidence of hysterical excitement or hallucination in either case. 
The Stedoyifero, “reckoned up different reasons,” is in itself 
against this. The verb is confined to the Synoptic Gospels 
(v. 21, 22; Mk. ii. 6, 8): Jn. xi. 50 the true reading is AoyieoOe. 

mwotamés. In N.T. this adj. never has the local signification, 
“from what country or nation?” cujas? (Aesch. Cho. 575; Soph. 
O.C. 1160). It is synonymous with zotos, a use which is found in 
Demosthenes ; and it always implies astonishment, with or without 
admiration (vii. 39; Mt. viii. 27; Mk. xiii. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 11; 1 Jn. 
iii. 1). In LXX it does not occur. The original form is zodazés, 
and may come from zod ad; but -damos is perhaps a mere ter- 
mination. 


ety. It is only in Lk. in N.T. that we find the opt. in indirect questions. 
In him it is freq. both without dy (iii. 15, viii. 9, xxii. 23; Acts xvii. I1, 
xxi. 33, xxv. 20) and with dy (vi. 11; Acts v. 24, x. 17). In Acts viii. 31 we 
have opt. with dy in a direct question. Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 1123 
Win. xli. 4. c, p. 374. 


80. Mi poBod, Mapidp, eSpes yap xdpw mapd ta Ocg. See on 


women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” (ver. 42), are first found in the 
Liber Antiphonianus attributed to Gregory the Great ; and they were authorized 
as a formula to be taught with the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, ¢. A.D. 1198. 
The third part, ‘‘ Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at 
the hour of death,” was added in the fifteenth century, and was authorized by 
Pope Pius v. in 1568. 


L 80-33.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 23 


ver. 13. The etpes xdpw 7. 7.®. explains xexapitwpevy. The phrase 
is Hebraic: Nde etpev xdpw evavriov Kupiov tod @eod (Gen. vi. 8; 
comp. xviii. 3, xxxix. 4). See on iv. 22. 


ovhAypayy. For the word see on ver. 24, and for the form comp. ii. 21, 
xx. 47; Acts i. 8, ii. 38, xxiii. 27; Jn. v. 43, xvi. 14, 15, 24. In Ionic we 
have fut. Adupount. Veitch, p. 359; Win. v. 4. f, p. 54. 


év yaotpt kat TéEn vidv, Kat Kahécets 76 Svowa. The same word- 
ing is found Gen. xvi. 16 of Ishmael, and Is. vil. 14 of Immanuel. 
Comp. Gen. xvii. 19 of Isaac, and Mt. i. 21 of Jesus. In all cases 
the xaAéoeis is not a continuation of the prophecy, but a command, 
as in most of the Ten Commandments (Mt. v. 21, 27, 33; comp. 
Ek iv. 12; Acts xxiii. 5, etc.). Win. xii. 5. c, p. 396. The 
name "Ingots was revealed independently to Joseph also (Mt. i. 21). 
It appears in the various forms of Oshea, Hoshea, Jehoshua, 
Joshua, Jeshua, and Jesus. Its meaning is “ Jehovah is help,” o1 
“God the Saviour.” See Pearson, Om the Creed, art. ii. sub init. 
p- 131, ed. 1849. 

32. obtos gota: péyas. As in ver. 15, this is forthwith ex- 
plained; and the greatness of Jesus is very different from the 
greatness of John. The title vids ‘Ywiorou expresses some very 
close relation between Jesus and Jehovah, but not the Divine Son- 
ship in the Trinity ; comp. vi. 35. On the same principle as @eés 
and Kvptos, “Yyoros is anarthrous: there can be only one Highest 
(Eeclus, vil. 15, xvil. 26, xix. 17, Xxiv. 2, 23, xxix. 11, efc.). The 
kAnPyjceTar is not a mere substitute for ora: He not only shall be 
the Son of God, but shall be recognised as such. In the Acti Pauli 
et fi heclee we have Makdpuot of codiavy AaBdvtes “Inood Xprorod, Ste 
abrtoi viol iyiorou KAyOycovrat (Tischendorf, p. 239). For t3v Opévov 
Aaveid comp. 2 Sam. vii. 12, 13 ; IShixs 6,775 xvii; 

AavelS tod matpds adtod. This is thought to imply the Davidic 
descent of Mary; but the inference is not quite certain. Jesus 
was the heir of Joseph, as both genealogies imply. Comp. Ps. 
cxxxii. 11; Hos. iii. 14. There is abundant evidence of the belief 
that the Messiah would spring from David: Mk. xii. 35, x. 47, 
xi. 10; Lk. xviii. 38, xx. 41; 4 Ezra xii. 32 (Syr. Arab. Arm.) ; Ps. 
Sol. xvii. 23, 24; Talmud and Targums. See on Rom. i. 3 

83. Baotledoer . . . els Tods aidvas. Comp. “ But of the Son 
he saith, God is Thy throne for ever and ever” (Heb. i. 8, where 
see Wsctt.); also Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14; Jn. xii. 34; Rev. xi. 15. 
The eternity of Christ’s kingdom is assured by the fact that it is to 
be absorbed in the kingdom of the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). 
These magnificent promises could hardly have been invented by a 
writer who was a witness of the condition of the Jews during the 
half century which followed the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed, 
we may perhaps go further and say that “it breathes the spirit of 


24 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 33-36, 


the Messianic hope before it had received the rude and crushing 
blow in the rejection of the Messiah” (Gore, Dissertations, p. 16). 
Comp. 2. 17, 54, 55, 68-71, li. 38. ; 

_ The constr. Bagthevew éml c. acc. is not classical. We have it again 

xix. 14, 27. 

834, Mas €otor todto. She does not ask for proof, as Zacharias 
did (ver. 18); and only in the form of the words does she ask as to 
the mode of accomplishment. Her utterance is little more than 
an involuntary expression of amazement: zon dubitantis sed admir- 
antis (Grotius). In contrasting her with Zacharias, Ambrose says, 
Hee jam de negotio tractat; wWle adhuc de nuntio dubitat. It is 
clear that she does not doubt the fact promised, nor fora moment 
suppose that her child is to be the child of Joseph. 

émet Gvdpa ob ywdoxw. Comp. Gen. xix. 8; Judg. xi. 39; 
Num. xxxi. 17. The words are the avowal of a maiden conscious 
of her own purity; and they are drawn from her by the strange 
declaration that she is to have a son before she is married. It is 
very unnatural to understand the words as a vow of perpetual 
virginity, or as stating that such a vow has already been taken, or 
is about to be taken. It is difficult to reconcile ov« éyivwoxey (im- 
perf., not aor.) adriy ews (Mt. i. 25) with any such vow.! 

35. Mveipa a&yrov émehedcetat emt o€. It may be doubted whether 
the article is omitted “‘ because Holy Spirit is here a proper name” ; 
rather because it is regarded impersonally as the creative power of 
God. Comp. kat rvetpya cod érepépero éxdvw Tod vdatos (Gen. i. 2): 
the two passages are very parallel. See on ver. 15. Both zvedua 
and dy.ov have special point. It is spirit and not flesh, what is 
holy and not what is sinful, that is to produce this effect in her. 
With éredctoera eri cé comp. Acts i. 3. Excepting Eph. ii. 7 and 
Jas. v. i, the verb is peculiar to Lk. (xi. 22, xxi. 26; Acts i. 8, 
Vili. 24, Xiil. 40, Xiv. 19). 

Sdvapis ‘Ywiorou émoxidcer gor. For Suvapis see on iv. 143 for 
émokidcer comp. the account of the Transfiguration (ix. 34), and 
for the dat. comp. the account of Peter’s shadow (Acts v. 15). It 
is the idea of the Shechinah which is suggested here (Exod. xl. 38). 
The cloud of glory signified the Divine presence and power, and it 
is under such influence that Mary is to become a mother. 

8.6. This illative particle is rare in the Gospels (vii. 7; Mt. xxvii. 8); 
not in Mk. or Jn. 

Td yevvevov Gytov KAnOAceTaL vids Geos. “ The holy thing which 
shall be born shall be called the Son of God,” or, ‘‘That which 


1H. Lasserre renders pucsque je n'ai nul rapport avec mon marz, and ex- 
plains that avy s¢guzfie mari, epoux; et la phrase marque la voeu de virginite 
conjugale fait par Marie (pp. 265, 564, ed. 1887). It is impossible that dvdpa, 
without either article or possessive pronoun, can mean ‘‘ my husband,” 


L. 35-37.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 25 


shall be born shall be called holy, the Son of God.” The latter of 
these two renderings seems to be preferable. Comp. &y:ov t6 xupiw 
KAnOyoerar (ii. 22); Nalwpaios xAnOyoerar (Mt. il. 23); viol Ocod 
KAnOnoovra (v. 9); eAdxuoros KAnOyoerat and péyas KX. (v. 19). In 
all cases the appellation precedes the verb. The unborn child is 
Ee dy.ov as being free from all taint of sin. De hoc Sancto idem 

ngelus est locutus, Dan. ix. 24 (Beng.). The é« ood, which many 
Bathorities insert after yevvdpevoy, is probably an ancient gloss, de- 
rived perhaps from Mt. i. 16: 8 AB C?D and most versions omit. 

The title “Son of God,” like “Son of Man,” was a recognized 
designation of the Messiah. In £xoch, and often in 4 Ezra, the 
Almighty speaks of the Messiah as His Son, Christ seldom used 
it of Himself (Mt. xxvii. 43; Jn. x. 36). But we have it in the 
voice from heaven (ill. 22, ix. 35); in Peters confession (Mt. 
xvi. 16); in the centurion’s exclamation (Mk. xv. 39); in the devil’s 
challenge (iv. 3, 9); in the cries of demoniacs (Mk. iii. 11, v. 7). 
Very early the Christian Church chose it as a concise statement of 
the divine nature of Christ. See on Rom. i. 4, and Swete, Apost. 
Creed, p. 24. For éywov see on Rom.i. 7. The radical meaning 
is “set apart for God, consecrated.” 

86. Kal idod "EXewdBer  auyyevis cov. Comp. ver. 20. Mary, 
who did not ask for one, receives a more gracious sign than 
Zacharias, who demanded it. The relationship between her and 
Elisabeth is unknown. 


*€Cousin,” started by Wiclif, and continued until RV. substituted ‘‘kins- 
woman,” has now become too definite in meaning. The kinship has led 
artists to represent the two children as being playmates; but Jn. i. 31 seems 
to be against such companionship. It has also led to the conjecture that 
Jesus was descended from both Levi and Judah (see on ver. 27). But Levites 
might marry with other tribes; and therefore Elisabeth, who was descended 
from Aaron, might easily be related to one who was descended from David. 
This verse is not evidence that Mary was not of the house of David. 

The late form cuyyevis (comp. evyevis), and the Ion. dat. yjpet for yipg 
(Gen. xv. 15, xxi. 7, xxv. 8), should be noticed ; also that obros being the 
subject, the noun has no article. Comp. xxi. 22. The combination kat 
odros is peculiar to Lk. (viii. 41?, xvi. I, xx. 28). The relative ages cf Jesus 
and of John are fixed by this statement. 

We may take xadXouuévy as imperf. part., ‘‘ Used to be called.” This 
reproach would cease when she reappeared at the end of the five months 
(ver. 24). xaXoUmevos with appellations is freq. in Lk. 


87. odk dduvatjcet Tapa Tod Gcod wav Aya. The negative and 
the verb are to be closely combined and taken as the predicate of 
wav phya. We must not take ot« with wav. This is plain from 
Gen. xviii. 14: py addvvaret wapa Td Ocd wav ppya; “ Hath God 
said, and can He not do it?” ze. Is anything which God has pro- 
mised impossible? RV. here has “be void of power” for ddvvarety ; 
but it is doubtful whether the verb ever has this signification. Of 
things, it means “to be impossible” (Mt. xvii. 20); and of persons, 


26 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [L. 87, 88. 


“to be unable” ; in which case, like Suvareiy (Rom. xiv. 4; 2 Cor. 
ix. 8), it is followed by the infin. That “be impossible” is the 
meaning, both here and Gen. xviii. 14, is probable from Job xlii. 2, 
olda Ore mavta Svvacat, advvarel 5é cor ovf&v ; and from Zech. viii. 6, 
where ddvvaryjce is used of a thing being too hard for man but not 
too hard for God; and from Jer. xxxii. 17, where both Aquila and 
Symmachus have ov« advvaryce for ob px) aroxpyBy of LXX. We 
render, therefore, “ From God no word shall be impossible.” The 
idiom ov - . . was, in the sense of “all . . . not,” ze. “none,” is 
probably Hebraic. Comp. Mt. xxiv. 22. It is less common in 
N.T. than in LXX (Exod. xii. 16, 44, xx. 16; Dan. ii. 10, etc.), 
Win. xxvi. I, p. 214. 

38. “150d % SouAn Kupiov. That idov is not a verb, but an 
exclamation, is manifest from the verbless nominative which follows 
it. Comp. v. 12, 18. . “Handmaid” or “servant” is hardly 
adequate to SovAn. It is rather “bondmaid” or “slave.” In an 
age in which almost all servants were slaves, the idea which is 
represented by our word “servant” could scarcely arise. In N.T. 
the fem. SovAy occurs only here, ver. 48, and Acts ii. 18, the last 
being a quotation. 

yévoTsd por kata Td fApd cov. This is neither a prayer that 
what has been foretold may take place, nor an expression of joy at 
the prospect. Rather it is an expression of swbmission,—“ God’s 
will be done”: zivag eiue ypdpomevos: 6 Bovderar 6 ypadeds, 
ypadérw (Eus.). Mary must have known how her social position 
and her relations with Joseph would be affected by her being with 
child before her marriage. There are some who maintain that the 
revelation made to Joseph (Mt. i. 18-23) is inconsistent with what 
Lk. records here ; for would not Mary have told him of the angelic 
message? We may reasonably answer that she would not do so. 
Her own inclination would be towards reserve (ii. 51); and what 
likelihood was there that he would believe so amazing a story? 
She would prefer to leave the issue with regard to Joseph in God’s 
hands. 

dmjdOev am adits 6 dyyedos. Ut peracta legatione. Comp. 
Acts xii. 10; Judg. vi. 21. 

On the whole of this exquisite narrative Godet justly remarks: ‘* Quelle 
dignité, quelle pureté, quelle simplicité, quelle délicatesse dans tout ce dialogue! 
Pas un mot de trop, pas un de trop peu. Une telle narration n’a pu émaner que 
de la sphere sainte dans laquelle le fait lui-méme avait eu leu” (i. p. 128, 3eme 
ed. 1888). Contrast the attempts in the apocryphal gospels, the writers of 
which had our Gospels to imitate, and yet committed such gross offences against 


taste, decency, and even morality. What would their inventions have been if 
they had had no historical Gospels to guide them? 


Dr. Swete has shown that the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception 
was from the earliest times part of the Creed. Beginning with Justin 
Martyr (Afo/. i. 21, 31, 32, 33, 63; Z7y. 23, 48, 100), he traces back 


Lt 38, 39.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 27 


through Aristides (J. R. Harris, p. 24; Hennecke, p. 9; Barnes, Canon. and 
Uncanon. Gospfp. p. 13), Ignatius (Eph. xix.; Trall. ix.; Smyr. i.), the 
Valentinians, and Basilides, to S. Luke, to whom these Gnostics appealed. 
The silence of S. Mark is of no weight; his record does not profess to go 
farther back than the ministry of the Baptist. In the Third Gospel we reach 
not merely the date of the Gospel (A.D. 75-80), but the date of the early 
traditions incorporated in these first chapters, traditions preserved (possibly 
in writing) at Jerusalem, and derived from Mary herself. 

The testimony of the First Gospel is perhaps even earlier in origin, and is 
certainly independent. It probably originated with Joseph, as the other with 
Mary (Gore, Bampton Lectures, p. 78; Dissertatzons on Subjects connected 
with the Incarnatzon, pp. 12-40). Greatly as the two narratives differ, both 
bear witness to the virgin birth (Swete, Zhe Apostles’ Creed, ch. iv.). 


89-56. Zhe Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother 
of the Forerunner. 


This narrative grows naturally out of the two which precede it 
in this group. The two women, who through Divine interposition 
are about to become mothers, meet and confer with one another. 
Not that a desire to talk about her marvellous experience prompts 
Mary to go, but because the Angel had suggested it (ver. 36). 
That Joseph’s intention of putting her away caused the journey, is 
an unnecessary conjecture. 


It is not easy to see why the Song of Elisabeth is not given in metrical 
form either in WH. orin RV. It seems to have the characteristics of Hebrew 
poetry in a marked degree, if not in so full a manner as the Magnificat, 
Benedictus, and Nunc Dimittis. It consists of two strophes of four lines 
each, thus— 

Rindoynuévn od ev yuvaséely, 

kal evAoynuévos 6 Kapmds Tis KoiAlas cov. 
kal 1é0ev por TOTO 

ta Eq H warp Tod Kuplov pou mpds eué 5 


Sod yap ws éyévero 7) Pwvh Tod doracpod cov els TA Grd pov, 
éoxlprnoev év dryaddidoet Td Bpédos ev TH Kotla pov. 
kal paxapla 7 mictevoaca bre €orar TeAElwors 
Tots Aadypévots avty mapa Kuplov. 


On all four songs see a paper on ‘‘ Messianic Psalms of the N.T.,” ty 
B. B. Warfield, Zxfosztor, 3rd series, ii. pp. 301, 321 ff. 


89. “Avactaoa. A very favourite word with Lk., who has it 
about sixty times against about twenty-two times in the rest of 
N.T. It occurs hundreds of times in LXX. Of preparation for 
a journey it is specially common (xv. 18, 20; Acts x. 20, xxii. Io, 
etc.). Lk. is also fond of such phrases as év tats tpépats TavTats, 
Or €v Tais ypépats Twos (Ver. 5, li. I, iv. 2, 25, V. 35, Vi. 12, ix. 36, 
eres Acts 1. £5, i) 18, Vv. 37, Vi. I, Vil. az, etc.). ‘They are: not 
found in Jn., and occur only four times in Mt., and the same in Mk. 
Here “in those days” means soon after the Annunciation. As 


28 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 39-42. 


the projected journey was one of several days, it would require time 
to arrange it and find an escort. See small print note on ver. 20. 
émopedOn eis Thy puny. There is no trace of “Opewy as a 
proper name; 7 épwy means the mountainous part of Judah as 
distinct from the plain (ver. 65; Gen. xiv. 10; Num. xiii. 29; 
Josh. ix. 1, x. 40; comp. Judith 1. 6, ii. 22, iv. 7). It is worth 
noting that in this narrative, which is from an independent source, 
Lk. twice uses 4 dpw7. Elsewhere, When he is on the same ground 
as Mt. and Mk., he uses, as they do, 70 6pos (vi. 12, Vili. 32, ix. 
28, 37). None of them use either é 6pos or Ta Opn. Lft. On a Fresh 
Revision of NV. TZ. pp. 124, 186, 3rd ed. 1891. For the shortening of 
Opewn} to épwy see WH. ii. App. p. 154. Grotius rightly remarks on 
peta omroudys, 7e negligeret signum quod augende ipsius jiduciz Deus 
assignaverat. Comp. Mk. vi. 25 ; Exod. xii. 11 ; Wisd. xix. 2. 
eis 7éAuv “lovda. Lk. does not give the name, probably because 
he did not know it. It may have been Hebron, just as it may 
have been any town in the mountainous part of Judah, and Hebron 
was chief among the cities allotted to the priests. But if Lk. had 
meant Hebron, he would either have named it or have written tiv 
7oAw in the sense of the chief priestly dwelling. But it is very 
doubtful whether the arrangement by which certain cities were 
allotted to the priests was carried into effect; and, if so, whether 
it continued. Certainly priests often lived elsewhere. Eli lived 
at Shiloh, Samuel at Ramathaim-Zophim, Mattathias at Modin. 
None of these had been allotted to the priests. See on ver. 23. 


That ’Io’da is the name of the town, and represents Juttah ("Irdv or "Ierrd 
or Tay’), which was in the mountain region of Judah (Josh. xv. 55), and had 
been allotted to the priests (Josh. xxi. 16), is possible. Reland (1714) was 
perhaps the first to advocate this. Robinson found a village called Yztah in 
that region (Zes. 2 Fal. ii. p. 206), and the identification is attractive. But 
the best authorities seem to regard it as precarious. A tradition, earlier than 
the Crusades, makes Azz Karim to be the birthplace of John the Baptist. 
Didon (/ésus Christ, App. D) contends for this, appealing to V. Guerin, 
Description de la Palestine, i. p. 83, and Fr, Liévin, Gucde de la Palestine, ii. 
But it is best to regard the place as an unknown town of Judah. In any case, 
the spelling ‘‘Juda” (AV.) is indefensible ; comp. iii. 33. 


41. éyéveto . . . eoxiptncev. See detached note at the end of 
the chapter. It is improbable that in her salutation Mary told 
Elisabeth of the angelic visit. The salutation caused the move- 
ment of the unborn child, and Elisabeth is inspired to interpret 
this sign aright. Grotius states that the verb is a medical word for 
the movement of children in the womb, but he gives no instances. 
It is used Gen. xxv. 22 of the unborn Esau and Jacob, and Ps. 
cxili. 4, 6 of the mountains skipping like rams. In class. Grk. it is 
used of the skipping both of animals and of men. For émAjo8n 
mveupatos Gyiou see ON ver. 15. as = “ when ” is very freq. in Lk. 

42, dvepwvncev. 1 Chron. xv. 28, xvi. 4, 5, 42; 2 Chron. 


L 42-45. | THE GOSPEL OF TIIE INFANCY 29 


v. 13; here only in N.T. Lk. frequently records strong expres- 
sions of emotion, adding peydAn to kpavyn, wry, xapd, etc. (il. 10, 
iv. 33, Vili. 28, xvil. 15, XIX. 37, xxii, 23, 46, xxiv. 52). It is 
perhaps because kpavyy seemed less appropriate to express a cry of 
joy that it has been altered (A C D) to the more usual ¢wv7. But 
it is convincingly attested (s BL). It means any cry of strong 
feeling, whether surprise (Mt. xxv. 6), anger (Eph. iv. 31), or 
distress (Heb. v. 7). 

Edhoynpévy od év yuvorgiv, A Hebraistic periphrasis for the 
superlative, “‘Among women thou art the one who is specially 
blessed.” Mary has a claim to this title ar’ é&oxjv. Comp. 
vii. 28. Somewhat similar expressions occur in class. Grk., esp. in 
poetry: & ira yuvatkGv (Eur. Alc. 460); & oxérAv avdpdv (Aristoph. 
Ran. 1048). In N.T. cidAoynuevos is used of men, etAoyyros of 
God: see on ver. 68. With eddoynpevos 6 kaptds Tis KoNias cou 
comp. evAoynuéva Ta exyova THs K. cov (Deut. xxviii. 4) and kaprév 
kotAtas (Gen. xxx. 2; Lam. ii. 20). See small print on ver. 15. 

43. kat mé0ev por todto. We understand yéyovey: comp. Mk. 
xii. 37. MModestix filii preludens gut olim Christo erat dicturus, ov 
épxn mpos pe; (Grotius). It is by inspiration (ver. 41) that Elisabeth 
knows that she who greets her is 7 pjryp tod Kupiov, Ze. of the 
Messiah’ (Ps. cx. 1). The expression “ Mother of God” is not 
found in Scripture.} 

Tn tva €\Oy we have a weakening of the original force of tva, which begins 
with the Alexandrine writers as an alternative for the infinitive, and has 
become universal in modern Greek. Godet would keep the telic force by 
arbitrarily substituting ‘* What have I done?” for ‘‘ Whence is this to me?” 


‘‘What have I done in order that?” ete. Comp. the Lucan constr., toiro 
Gru (x. II, xii. 39; Acts xxiv. 14). 


44, *I80d yap as eyéveto wv) Tod domacpod cov. On this 
yap Bengel bases the strange notion that the conception of the 
Christ takes place at the salutation: ydp vationem experimens, cur 
hoc ipso temporis puncto Elisabet primum “ Matrem Domini sui” 
proclamet Mariam. . . . Nunc Dominus, et respectu matris et 
progenitorum, et respectu locorum, ubi conceptus xque ac natus est, 
ex Juda est ortus. It is a mark of the delicacy and dignity of the 
narrative that the time is not stated; but ver. 38 is more probable 
than ver. 40. Excepting 2 Cor. vii. 11, ido ydp is peculiar to Lk. 
(ver. 48, ii. 10, vi. 23, xvil. 21; Acts ix. 11). For éyéveto hwy 
see on lili. 22 and 36. 

45. pakapia 4 motevcaca St. Latin texts, both of Lat. Vet. 
and of Vulg., vary much between deata gue credidit quoniam and 
beata que credidisti guoniam. English Versions are equally varied, 
even Wic. and Rhem. being different.  “ Blessed is she that 


SE. Didon inaccurately renders this, Comment se fact-2l que la mére de mon 
Dieu vienne a mot (p. 111). 


30 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I 45. 
believed” is probably right. This is the first beatitude in the 
Gospel; and it is also the last: paxdpuoe of pay tdvres Kal muotev- 
gavtes (Jn. xx. 29). In Mk. paxdpios does not occur; and in 
Jn. only xii. 17 and xx. 29. It is specially common in Lk. 

This verse is one of many places in N.T. in which 67: may be either ‘‘ that” 
or ‘‘ because”: see on vii. 16. There can be little doubt that Luther, Erasmus, 
Beza, and all Latin and English Versions are right in taking the latter sense here. 
The 67: introduces the reason why the belief is blessed and not the contents (Syr. 
Sin.) of the belief. There is no need to state what Mary believed. Elisabeth 
adds her faith to Mary’s, and declares that, amazing as the promise is, it will 
assuredly be fulfilled. Only a small portion of what had been promised (31-33) 
nad as yet been accomplished ; and hence the éorat teAeiwors, ‘‘ There shall 
be a bringing to perfection, an accomplishment” (Heb. vii. 11). Comp. éfeAed- 
couar els Tehelwow TOv Adyww Gv éadjcare per’ éuod (Judith x. 9). 


46-56. The Magnificat or Song of Mary. 

This beautiful lyric is neither a reply to Elisabeth nor an 
address to God. It is rather a meditation; an expression of per- 
sonal emotions and experiences. It is more calm and majestic 
than the utterance of Elisabeth. The exultation is as great, but it 
is more under control. The introductory <izev, as contrasted with 
avepdvycev Kpavyy peyddy (ver. 42), points to this. _The h is 
modelled upon the O.T. Psalms, especially the Song of Hannah 
{1 Sam. ii. 1-10); but its superiority to the latter in moral an 
spiritual elevation is very manifest. From childhood the Jews 
knew many of the O.T. lyrics by heart ; and, just as our own poor, 
who know no literature but the Bible, easily fall into biblical 
language in times of special joy or sorrow, so Mary would naturally 
fall back on the familiar expressions of Jewish Scripture in this 
moment of intense exultation. The exact relation between her 
hymn and these familiar expressions can be best seen when the 
two are placed side by side in a table. 


THE MAGNIFICAT. 


Meyahtve 7 Yux7y pou Tév KUpiop 
kal éya\Alacev 7d rvedud ov 
éxl T@ curipl wow 
Sr. éwéBheVer éxl ri rarelyvwow 


ths SovAns abrov 
l5od yap dxrd Tod viv 
paxapoicly we macau al yeveal. 
6r érolncév wor peyada 6 Suvarés, 
kal &yov 76 bvoua atrod, 
cal rd 2eos atrod els yeveds cal yeveds 


tots poBoupévots avTov. 


THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


1 ’EorepedOn 7 xapdla pov év Kuply, 
bYdOn Képas wou 
év Ge@ pov. 
3 day ériBrérwy ériPréyns Thy tawel- 
vuoW 
Ths SovAns cou— 
8 Maxapla éyw, Sr 
paxapltovcly we wacat al yuvatKes. 
4 Scris érolncev ev cot TA 
5 Gyov Kal PoBepdv 7d Svopa avrod. 
© 7d dé Arcos Tod Kuplov awd 720 al&vos 
kal Ews Tov alavos 
él rods poBoupévous autor. 





1y Sam. ii. 1. 
* Deut. x. 21. 


31 Sam. i. 11. 
SPs) exe: 


® Gen. xxx. 13 
S Pscii ys 


I. 46, 47.] 


"Exolycev xpdtos év Bpaxlove abrov 


dtecxdpmicev drrepnpdvous 
diavola Kapdlas abrap. 
wadetAev Suvdoras ad Opbywy 
kal UWwoev TaTrewvovs, 
mewavTas évérAnoev ayabav 
kal wAovrovvras ctaméareiAev Kevovs. 


*AvreddBero Iopahd mrasdds avrod, 


pynoOnvar éddovs, 
xadcs E\dAnoev mpds Tods marépas 7UGY 
TO ABpady kal Te orépyare avroi els 


TIIE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 3I 


26d dramevdoas ws Tparparlay drep- 
Hpavor, 
kal év T@ Bpaxlov TAs Suvdwews cov 
Oveckdpmigas Tovs €xGpovs cou 
3 éLamocté\\wy lepets alypaddrous 
duvdotas dé ys katéorpewev. 
3 dy moodyTa Tazrewous els tos, 
kal dmo\wNdras ebeyelpovTa. 
* Kipios mrwxlfer kal wdovrlfer 
Tamewvot kal dvuot. 
8 Wuyi rewvacav évérdycer dyabar. 
© 0 de, "Icpad, mais pov, od dvrTeda- 
Bopnyv— 
7 euvjoOn Tod édéous abrod TH laxwB. 
8 ducer els adjOevay TH "laxdB, eeov 
7@ ’ABpadu, KdBort Guooas Tots 


Tov al@vde TaTpdow nav kara Tas Nuépas TAs 
_Eumpooder, 
970 Aaveld kal T@ oréppart atrod ews 


al@vos, 


The hymn falls into four strophes, 46-48, 49 and 50, 51-53, . / 


54 and 55.1 

46. Meyadiver 4 ux pou tov Képiov. The verb is used in the 
literal sense of “enlarge,” Mt. xxili. 5: comp. Lk.i. 58. More often, 
as here, in the derived sense of “‘esteem great, extol, magnify” 
(Acts v. 13, x. 46, xix. 17). So also in class. Grk.~ Weiss goes 
too far when he contends that “distinctions drawn between 
yxy and mvcdpua have absolutely no foundation in N.T. usage” 
(sind ginzlich unbegriindet); but it is evident that no distinction 
is to be made here. The yvy7 and the zvedua are the immaterial 
part of man’s nature as opposed to the body or the flesh. It is in 
her inner, higher life, in her real self, that Mary blesses God in 
jubilation. If a distinction were made here, we ought to have 
peyodvver 76 rvedud pov and yyaddiace % Wx pov, for the mvedpua 
is the seat of the religious life, the yuyx7 of the emotions. See Lft. 
Notes on the Epp. of S. Paul, p. 88, 1895, and the literature there 
quoted, esp. Olshausen, Ofwsc. p. 157. 

47. jyodXiacev. A word formed by Hellenists from dydA\\oum, and 
freq. in LXX (Ps. xv. 9, xlvii. 12, Ixix. 5; Is. xxxv. 2; Jer. xlix. 4). The 
act. is rare ; perhaps only here and Rev. xix. 7; but as v./. 1 Pet. i. 8. The 
aor. may refer to the occasion of the angelic visit. But it is the Greek idiom 
to use the aor. in many cases in which we use the perf., and then it is mis- 
leading to translate the Grk. aor. by the Eng. aor. Moreover, in late Grk. 


1 Ps, Ixxxix. II. 

“1 Sam. ii. 7. SAPS evil Os 6 Is. xli. 8. 

TPs. xcviil. 3. 8 Mic. vii. 20. 92 Sam. xxii. 51. 

10 On the structure of Hebrew poetry, see Driver, Literature of the O.T. 
pp. 338-345, T. & T. Clark, 1891. 

On the use of the A/agnijicat, first at Lauds in the Gallican Church, from 
A.D. 507, and then at Vespers on Saturday in the Sarum Breviary, see Blunt, 
Annotated Prayer-Book, 


2 Job xii. 19. 8 Jobv. II. 


32 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [L 47-51. 


the distinction between aor. and perf. had become less sharp. Simcox, 
Lang. of N.T. pp. 103-106. 


7G GG 7G cwripi pou. He is the Saviour of Mary as well as 
of her fellows. She probably included the notion of external and 
political deliverance, but not to the exclusion of spiritual salvation. 
For the expression comp. 1 Tim. i. 1, ii. 3; Tit. i. 3, ii. 10, ili. 4; 
Jude 25; Ps. xxiil. 5, cvi. 21. In the Ps. Sol. we have ’AAjbea 
tov Sixaiwy rapa Ocod cwrjpos avrar (ill. 7); and jets dé eAmiodpev 
émi @cdv tov cwripa hydv (xvii. 3). Comp. Ps. Sod. viii. 39, xvi. 4. 

48, St éméBdeev emt Thy tamelvwow THs SovAns avTod. Comp. 
Hannah’s prayer for a child 1 Sam. i. 11. In spite of her humble 
position as a carpenter’s bride, Mary had been chosen for the 
highest honour that a human being could receive. For tazeivwous 
comp. Acts viii. 33 (from Is. lili. 8) and Phil. iii. 21; and for idetp 
Thy Taretvwow Comp. 2 Kings xiv. 26 and Ps. xxv. 18. This use 
of émiBAéreav emi is freq. in LXX (Ps. xxv. 16, lxix. 16, cii. 19, 
cxix. 132, etc.) ; see esp. 1 Sam. ix. 16. 

idod yap amd Tod viv pakaprodciv pe Tacat at yeveat. For idob 
yép see on ver. 42, and for dm toG viv see ony. 10. Elisabeth 
had begun this paxapifew, and we have another instance in the 
woman from the crowd (xi. 27). Note the wide difference between 
the scope of Mary’s prophecy, paxapiotow waco ai yeveat, and 
Leah’s statement of fact, paxapiLovelvy pe wacat ai yuvaikes (Gen. 
XXX. 13). 


The Latin renderings of awd rod vp are interesting: ex hoc (Vulg.), 
a modo (d), a nunc (Cod. Gall.). 


49. S11 émoincéy por peydda 6 Suvatds. Here the second strophe 
begins. The reading weyaActa may come from Acts ii. 11: comp. 
& éroinoas peyadcia (Ps. Ixx. 19). With 6 duvarés comp. divapus 
‘Ypiorov (ver. 35) and Kvpuos xparatds kai dvvards (Ps. xxiil. 8). In 
LXX dvvards is very common, but almost invariably of men. After 
both dvvards and airot we should place a colon. The clause xai 
aylov TO dvop.a avrod is a separate sentence, neither dependent upon 
the preceding dr, nor very closely connected with what follows. 

50. kai Td Edeos adtod eis yeveds Kal yeveds Tots hoPoupevors 
aitov. Comp. Ps. Sol. x. 4, kat 16 éAeos Kupiov éri tovs dyarévras 
avrov év dAnOea, Kal uvnoOnoerar Kvpios tév SovAwv avrod ev édéet? 
also xiii. 11, él d€ rods daious Td EAcos Kupiov, Kal emt Tovs HoBovpe- 
vous avtov 7d Ecos airov. With eis yeveds x. y. Comp. eis yeveds 
yevedv (Is. xxxiv. 17), eis yevedy Kat yevedy (Ps. lxxxix. 2), and Kara 
yeveay Kat yevedvy (1 Mac. il. 61). “Fearing God” is the O.T. 
description of piety. Nearly the whole verse comes from Ps. 
Cili, 17. 

51, “Emolncev xpdros év Bpaxlov adtod, Steoxdpmicev, x.t.A. Begin- 
ning of the third strophe. The six aorists in it are variously explained. 


I. 51-54.) THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 33 


1. They tell of things which the Divine power and holiness and mercy 
(wv. 49, 50) have already accomplished in the past. 2. According to the 

_ common prophetic usage, they speak of the future as already past, and tell of 
the effects to be produced by the Messiah as if they had” been produced. 
3. They are gnomic, and expréssGod’s normal acts. We may set aside this 
last. ~It is very doubtful whether the aor. is ever used of what is normal or 
habitual (Win. xl. 5. b, 1, p. 346). Of the other two explanations, the 
second is to be preferred. It is more likely that Mary is thinking of the far- 
reaching effects of the blessing conferred upon herself than of past events un- 
connected with that blessing. In either case the six aorists must be translated 
by the English perfect. They show that in this strophe, as in the second, we 
have a triplet. There it was God’s power, holiness, and mercy. Here it is 
the contrasts between proud and humble, high and low, rich and poor. 

Both érotnoev kpatos and év Bpaxtovt attod are Hebraisms. For the 
former comp. de&a Kuplov éroincev divas (Ps. cxvVilil. 15). For Spaxlwy to 
express Divine power comp. Acts xiii. 17 > Jn. xii--38 (from Is. liii. 1); Ps. 
xliv. 3, xcvili. I, etc. The phrase év xepl xparaig Kal év Bpaxlom symrg is 
freq. in LXX (Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, vi. 21, xxvi. 8). This use of é is in the 
main Hebraistic (xxii, 49; Rev. vi. 8; Judg. xv. 15, xx. 16;-1 Kings xii. 18 3 
Fadith vi. 12, viii. 33). Win. xlviii. 3. d, p. 485. 

trrepndavous Siavolqa Kapdias aitav. The dat. limits drepnpavous: 
they arg proud and overweening in thought. In N.T. drepijpavos is never 
‘* conspicttous above” others, but always in a bad sense, ‘‘ looking down on” 
others (Jas. iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5; Rom. i. 30; 2 Tim. iii. 2. It is freq. in 
LXX.. Comp. Ps. Sol. ii. 35, xoulfwv brepnddvous els dwddeay alivov ép 
driulg ; also iv. 28. See Wsctt. on I Jn. ii. 16, and Trench, Sym. xxix. 


52. kafethev Suvdotas dad Opdvav Kai dpwoev tatewots. “He 
hath put down potentates from thrones.” ‘ Potentates” rather 
than “princes” (RV.), or “the mighty” (AV.), because of 1 Tim. 
vi. 15. Comp. duvdcrat Papaw (Gen. |. 4). In Acts viii. 27 it is 
an adj. It is probable that tazewovs here means primarily the 
oppressed poor as opposed to tyrannical rulers. See Hatch, Bidsical 
Greek, pp. 73-77. Besides the parallels given in the table (p. 31) 
comp. ava\apBdavev zpacis 6 Kiptos, Tarewvav S& duaptwAovs Ews TAS 
yis (Ps. cxlvii. 6); Opovots dpxdvrwv Kabetrev 6 Kiptos, kal éxdbicey 
mpgets avr att&v (Ecclus. x. 14); also Lk. xiv. 11, xviii. 14; Jas. 
i.9, 10. In Clem. Rom. Cor. lix. 3 we have what looks like ax 
paraphrase, but may easily come from O.T. Comp. Zxoch xlvi. 5.~ 

58. tewavtas évém\yoev Gyadv. Both material and spiritual 
goods may be included. Comp. wAjpes dprwv AAattadOnoav, Kat 
aobevotvres tapyxav yv (1 Sam. ii. 5); also Ps. Sol. v. 10-12, x. 7. 

54. *AvtehdBeto “lopaijA madds adrot. The fourth strophe. 
The regular biblical meaning of dvriAapBavoya is “lay hold of 
in order to support or succour” (Acts xx. 35; Ecclus. ii. 6); hence 
avriAnwus is “succour, help” (1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Ps. xxi. 20, lxxxiii. 8), 
and dy7iAjmrwp is “helper” (Ps. xviii. 3, liv. 6). There is no 
doubt that zadds airod means “ His servant,” not “His son.” 
The children of God are called réxva or viot, but not zatSes. We 
have vais in the sense of God’s servant used of Israel or Jacob 
(Is. xli. 8, 9, xlii. 1, xliv. 1, 2, 21, xlv. 4); of David (Lk. i. 693 

3 


34 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 54-56, 


Acts iv. 25; Ps. xvii. 1; Is. xxxvii. 35); and of Christ (Acts 
iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30). Comp. Ps. Sol. xii. 7, xvii. 23; Didaché, 
IX. 2, 3, X. 2, 3. 

prnoPivat éhéous. “So as to remember mercy,” Ze. to prove 
that He had not forgotten, as they might have supposed. Comp. 
Ps. Sol. x. 4, kai pvncOynoerar Kipios tav SovAwv avrod ev édee. 

55. kaOas éhddynoev mods. ‘‘ Even as He spake unto”: see on 
gv. 2 and 13. ‘This clause is not a parenthesis, but explains the 
extent of the remembrance of mercy. RV. is the first English 
Version to make plain that to “ABpadp, x.t.X., depends upon 
pvnoOjvac and not upon éAdAyoev by rendering zpés “unto” and 
the dat. “toward.” To make this still more plain, “As He spake 
unto our fathers” is put into a parenthesis, which is not necessary. 
The Genevan is utterly wrong, “(Even as He promised to our 
fathers, ¢o wz, to Abraham and his sede) for ever.” It is im- 
probable that Lk. would use both zpés and the simple dat. after 
é\dA\yoev in the same sentence; or that he means to say that 
God spoke to Abraham’s seed for ever. The phrase eis tév aidva 
is common in the Psalms, together with «is tov aidva Tod aidvos 
(Heb. i. 8) and «is aidva aiévos. It means “unto the age,” ze. 
the age xar efoynv, the age of the Messiah. The belief that 
whatever is allowed to see that age will continue to exist in that 
age, makes «is tov aidva equivalent to “‘for ever. This strophe, 
like ver. 72, harmonizes with the doctrine that-Abraham is still 
alive (xx. 38), and is influenced by what takes place in the 
development of God’s kingdom on earth (Jn. viii. 56; comp. Heb. 
Si rs Is. xxix, 22.123). 

For els rév alava ACF MS here have @ws aldvyos (1 Chron. xvii. 16; 
Ezek, xxv. 15?), which does not occur in N.T. 


56. “Evewev S¢ Maprap odv aity- Lk. greatly prefers vv to 

d. He uses ovv much more often than all N.T. writers put 
together. In his Gospel we find him using ovv where the parallel 
passage in Mt. or Mk. has perd or kat ; ¢.g. vill. 38, 51, XX. I, XXil. 14, 
56. We have ovy three times in these first two chapters ; here, ii. 5 
and 13. It is not likely that an interpolator would have caught 
all these minute details in Lk.’s style: see Introd. § 6. 

és pvas tpets. This, when compared with piy éxros (ver. 36), 
leads us to suppose that Mary waited until the birth of John the 
Baptist. She would hardly have left when that was imminent. 
Lk. mentions her return before mentioning the birth in order to 
complete one narrative before beginning another; just as he 
mentions the imprisonment of the Baptist before the Baptism of 
the Christ in order to finish his account of John’s ministry before 
beginning to narrate the ministry of Jesus (iii. 20, 21). That 
Mary is not named in vz. 57, 58 is no evidence that she was not 


L 56, 57.] |§THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 3, 


present. It would be unnatural to say that one of the ..ousehold 
heard of the event; and, in fact, of ovyyevets would include her, 
whether it is intended to do so or not. Origen, Ambrose, Bede, 
and others believe that she remained until the birth of John. For 
the patristic arguments for and against see Corn. & Lap. Lk. 
leaves us in doubt, probably because his authority left him in 
doubt ; but Didon goes too far in saying that Lk. insinuates that 
she was not present.} 


For this use of és comp, viii. 42 (not ii. 37); Acts i. 15, v. 7, 36. Lk. 
more often uses ®cel in this sense (iii. 23, ix. 14, 28, xxii. 41, 59, xxiii. 44; 
Acts ii. 41, etc.). In baéorpeyev we have another very favourite word which 
runs through both Gospel and Acts. It does not occur in the other Gospels, 
and is found elsewhere only Gal. i. 17 and Heb. vii. 1. 


Meyer rightly remarks that ‘‘the historical character of the Visitation of 
Mary stands or falls with that of the Annunciation.” The arguments against it 
are very inconclusive. I. That it does not harmonize with Joseph’s dream in 
Mt. i. 20; which has been shown to be incorrect. 2. That there is no trace 
elsewhere of great intimacy between the two families ; which proves absolutely 
nothing. 3. That the obvious purpose of the narrative is to glorify Jesus, in 
making the unborn Baptist acknowledge Him as the Messiah; which is mere 
assertion. 4. That the poetic splendour of the narrative lifts it out of the 
historical sphere ; which implies that what is expressed with great poetic beauty 
cannot be historically true,—a canon which would be fatal to a great deal of 
historical material. We may assert oi this narrative, as of that of the Annuncia- 
tion, that no one in the first or second century could have imagined either. 
Least of all could any one have given us the A/agnzjicat,—‘“‘ the most magni- 
ficent cry of Joy that has ever issued from a human breast.” Nothing that has 
come down to us of that age leads us to suppose that any writer could have 
composed these accounts without historic truth to guide him, any more than an 
architect of that age could have produced Milan cathedral. Comp. the Prot- 
evangelium of James xii.-xiv.; the Pseudo-Matthew ix.-xii.; the Hist. of Joseph 
the Carpenter iii.-vi. 


57-80. The Birth and Circumcision of the Forerunner. 


57. émdyobn 6 xpdvos tod téxew adtyv. Expressions about time 
or days being fulfilled are found chiefly in these two chapters in 
N.T. (ver. 23, li. 6, 21, 22). They are Hebraistic: e.g. érAyps- 
Oncav ai juepar Tod téxew airyv (Gen. xxv. 24 ; comp. xxix. 21; Lev. 
xii. 4,6; Num. vi. 5, etc.). And rod réxew is gen. after 6 xpovos. 


1Didon has some excellent remarks on the poetical portion of this 
narrative. La podsze est le langage des impressions véhémentes et des idées 
sublimes. Chez les Juifs, comme chez tous les peuples d Orient, elle jaillait 
inspiration. Tout Ame est podte, la joe ou la douleur la fait chanter. St 
jamats un coeur a di faire explosion dans quelque hymne inspirée, Cest bien 
celui de la jeune fille clue de Dieu pour étre la mére du Messie. 

Elle emprunte a [histotre bibligue des femmes gut, avant elle, ont tressaill 
dans leur maternité, comme Liah et la mére de Samuel des expressions qu elle 
élargit et transfigure. Les hymnes nationaux gui célébrent la gloire de son 
peuple, la miséricorde, la puissance, la sagesse et la fid'lité de Dieu, reviennent 
sur ses lévres habituces a les chanter (Jésus Christ, p. 112, ed. 1891). The 
whole passage is worth consulting. 


36 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |L. 57-62. 


épeydduvey Kuptos Td eXeos adtod pet adtas. The verb is not 
used in the same sense as in ver. 46, nor yet quite literally as in 
Mt. xxiil. 5, but rather “made conspicuous,” ze. bestowed con- 
spicuous mercy. Comp. eueyaAvvas tiv Sucatootvvyy cov (Gen. 
xix. 19). The mer air7s does not mean that she co-operates 
with God, but that He thus deals with her. Comp. ver. 72, x. 37, 
and cidere & Cueyadvvey pe tudv (1 Sam. xii. 24). In ocuvéxatpov 
aéty we have the first beginning of the fulfilment of ver. 14. It 
means “rejoiced with her” (xv. 6, 9; 1 Cor. xii. 26), rather 
than “congratulated her” (Phil. ii. 17). 

59. AOav wepitepety TO Taidiov. The nom. must be under- 
stood from the vontext, amici ad eam rem advocati, viz. some of 
those mentioned ver. 58. Circumcision might be performed 
anywhere and by any Jew, even by a woman (Exod. iv. 25). 


On the mixture of first and second aorist in such forms as 7\@ap, éreca, 
eldapev, dvetday, etc., see Win. xiil, I. a, p. 86; WH. ii. App. p. 164; 
and comp. ver. 61, ii. 16, v. 7, 26, vi. 17- Vil. 24, Xi. 2, 52, xxii. 52; Acts 
Tig 235 XUls 75) XV1e 97 XXL 7g ELC, 


exddouv atts ért TH dvdpatt tod tatpds attoé. Not merely 
“they wished to call,” but “they began to call, were calling ” ; 
comp. v. 6; Acts vii. 26; Mt. iii, 14. The custom of com- 
bining the naming with circumcision perhaps arose from Abram 
being changed to Abraham when circumcision was instituted. 
Naming after the father was common among the Jews (Jos. Vita, 
1; Anz. xiv. 1. 3). For the éwé comp. éxAnOy éw évopate attav 
(Neh. vii. 63). 

60. kAnPycetar “lwdvys. It is quite gratuitous to suppose that 
the name had been divinely revealed to her, or that she chose it 
herself to express the boon which God had bestowed upon her. 
Zacharias would naturally tell her in writing what had taken place 
in the temple. With kadetrat TG dvéuare comp. xix. 2. 

62. évévevov. Here only in N.T., but we have vevw similarly 
used Acts xxiv. ro and Jn. xiii. 24. Comp. éweve dpfarpo, 
oypaiver de Tool, duddoKer Oe evvevpacw daxTvAwy (Prov. vi. 13), 
and 6 évvevwv eau pera. SdXov (Prov. x. 10). Some infer 
that Zacharias was deaf as well as dumb; and this is often the 
meaning of xwdds (ver. 22), viz. “/unted in speech or hearing, or 
both” (vii. 22). But the question is not worth the amount of 
discussion which it has received. 

To tt dv Oko. The art. turns the whole clause into a sub 
stantive. “They communicated by signs ¢he question, what he,’ 
etc. Comp. Rom. viii. 26; 1 Thes. iv. 1; Mt. xix. 18. The ro 
serves the purpose of marks of quotation. 


This use of 76 with a sentence, and especially with a question, is common 
in Lk. (ix. 46, xix. 48, xxii. 2, 4, 23, 24, 37; Acts iv. 21, xxii 30). Note 


I. 62-65.] | THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 37 


the dy: “what he would Jerhags wish, might wish.” We have exactly the 
same use of dy Jn. xiii. 24; comp. Lk. vi. 11; Acts v. 24, xxi. 33. Win. 
xlii. 4, p. 386. 

63. aitjoas mivaxidiov. Postulans pugillarem (Vulg.), cum petis- 
set tabulam (ad). Of course by means of signs, évvevpacw daxridov. 
One is inclined to conjecture that Lk. or his authority accidentally 
put the évvevew in the wrong place. Signs must have been used 
here, and they are not mentioned. They need not have been used 
ver. 62, and they are mentioned. The zwaxidiov would probably be 
a tablet covered with wax: Joguitur in stylo, auditur in cera (Tert. 
De idol. xxiii.). 

All four forms, rivat, riaxls, wivdxcov, and rwaxlé.ov, are used of writing- 
tablets, and mivaxida is v./.(D) here. But elsewhere in N.T. rivat isa ‘‘ dish” 
or ‘‘ platter” (xi. 39; Mt. xiv. 8,11; Mk. vi. 25, 28). Note the Hebraistie 
particularity in €éypawev Aéywv, and comp. 2 Kings x. 6; 1 Mac. x. 17, 
xi. 57. This is the first mention of writing in N.T. 


*Iwdvys éotiv dvopa adtod. Not éora, but éoriv: habet vocabulum 
suum quod agnovimus, non quod elegimus (Bede) ; quasi dicat nullam 
superesse consultationem in re quam Deus jam definitsset (Grotius) ; 
non tam jubet, quam jussum divinum indicat (Beng.). The é@atpacav 
awdvtes may be used on either side of the question of his deafness. 
They wondered at his agreeing with Elisabeth, although he had not 
heard her choice of name; or, they wondered at his agreeing with 
her, although he had heard the discussion. 

64. dvedxOn 8é€ Td otdpa attod mapaxpjpa. The prophecy 
which he had refused to believe was now accomplished, and the 
sign which had been granted to him as a punishment is withdrawn. 
That the first use of his recovered speech was to continue blessing 
God (éAdAer ebAoyGv), rather than to complain, is evidence that the 
punishment had proved a blessing to him. The addition of kat 
yAGéooa attod involves a zeugma, such as is common in all lan- 
guages: comp. 1 Cor. iii. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 3; Win. lxvi. 1. e, p. 777. 
The Complutensian Bible, on the authority of two cursives (140, 
251), inserts dijpOpaOy after 7 yAdooa airod: see on i. 22. For 
Tapaxphpa see on v. 25 and comp. iv. 29. We are left in doubt 
as to whether éAddex eddoyay refers to the Benedicfus or to some 
evAoyia which preceded it. The use of ézpodyrevee and not 
evAdynoev in ver. 67 does not prove that two distinct acts of thanks- 
giving are to be understood. 

65. éyéveto éwit mavtas péBos. See on iv. 36. Zacharias (ver. 12) 
and Mary (ver. 30) had had the same feeling when conscious of the 
nearness of the spiritual world. A writer of fiction would have 
been more likely to dwell upon the joy which the wonderful birth 
of the future Prophet produced; all the more so as such joy 
had been predicted (ver. 14). The adrods means Zacharias and 
Elisabeth. 


38 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 65, 66. 


Stehahetro mdvta Ta pyyata tadra. This need not be confined 
to what was said at the circumcision of John. It is probably the 
Hebraistic use of pyyata for the ¢hings which are the subject- 
matter of narration. Comp. ii. 19, 51, where RV. has “sayings” 
in the text and “things” in the margin ; and Acts v. 32, where it 
has “things” in the text and “sayings” in the margin. Comp. 
LXX Gen. xv. I, xxil, I, 16, poodx. 7, xl. 1, xlviii. 1, and esp. 
xxiv. 66, ravra Ta pypata & éxoinoev. The verb diadaXely occurs 
only here and vi. 11: not in LXX, but in Sym. several times in 
the Psalms. 

66. W@evto mdvres of Axovcavtes év TH Kapdiq av’tay. Comp. ii. 19. 
We find all three prepositions with this phrase, év, éml, and els: &@ero Aaveld 
Ta phyara &v Hh kapola avrod (1 Sam. xxi. 12); 20eTo Aaveyn éml Thy kapelav 
avrov (Dan. i. 8); rideade els riv kapdlay vuay (Mal. ii. 2). Lk. is fond of 
constructions with évy rq x. or év Tats x. (ii. 19, ili. 15, v. 22, xxi. 143 
comp. ii. 51, xxiv. 38). In Hom. we have both @eival 7s and @écOae m1, 
either év ¢peol or év or7Oecot. Note that, not only is rds or drasa favourite 
word with Lk., but either form combined with a participle of dkotw is also 
freq. and characteristic (ii. 18, 47, iv. 28, vi. 47, vil. 29, xx. 453 Acts v. 5, 
TI, ix. 21, x. 44, XXVi. 29; comp. Acts iv. 4, xviii. 8). See on vi. 30. 

Tt dpa 15 watdiov tovTo ota; Not ris; the neut. makes the question 
more indefinite and comprehensive: comp. 7! dpa 6 Ilérpos éyévero (Acts xii. 
18). The dpa, zgetur, means ‘‘in these circumstances” ; viii. 25, xii. 42, 
xxii. 23. 

kal yap xelp Kuptou nv pet attod. ‘‘ For besides all that,” #.e. 
in addition to the marvels which attended his birth. This is a 
remark of the Evangelist, who is wont now and then to interpose 
in this manner: comp. ii. 50, ili. 15, Vil. 39, XVi. 14, XX. 20, 
xxiii, 12. The recognition that John was under special Divine 
influence caused the questioa, ti dpa éorar; to be often repeated in 
after times. Here, as in Acts xi. 21, xelp Kupiov is followed by 
pera, and the meaning is that the Divine power interposes to guide 
and bless. See small print on i. 20 for other parallels between 
Gospel and Acts. Where the preposition which follows is ézé, the 
Divine interposition is generally one of punishment (Acts xill. 11; 
Judg. ii. 15; 1 Sam. v. 3, 6, vil. 13; Exod. vii. 4, 5). But this is 
by no means always the case (2 Kings iii. 15; Ezra vii. 6, viil. 
22, 31); least of all where xelp has the epithet éya@y (Ezra vii. 
9, 28, vill. 18). In N.T. xelp Kupiov is peculiar to Lk. (Acts 
XL 21, Xill. 12; comp. iv. 28, 30). 

67-79. The Benedictus or Song of Zacharias may be the ev- 
Aoyia mentioned in ver. 64.1 To omit it there, im order to continue 
the narrative without interruption, and to give it as a solemn 
conclusion, would be a natural arrangement. As the Magnificat 
is modelled on the psalms, so the Benedictus is modelled on the 


1 Like most of the canticles, the Benedéctus was originally said at Lauds: 
and it is still said at Lauds, in the Roman Church daily, in the Greek Church 
on special occasions. See footnote on p. 67. 


L 66.] 


THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 39 


prophecies, and it has been called “the last prophecy of the Old 


Dispensation and the first in the New.” 
the Magnificat is regal, that of the Benedictus is sacerdotal. 


And while the tone of 
The 


one is as appropriate to the daughter of David as the other to the 


son of Aaron. 
seen in a table. 


THE BENEDICTUS. 


EvAoynrds Kuptos 6 Geds rod Iopann, 
drt emecxéyaro Kal émolnoev NiTpwow 
To daw aurov, 
kal ityeipev képas owrnplas 7; piv 
év olky Aaveld matdds avrod, 


Kaas edddnoev id orbyaros TOv aylup 
am’ aldvos Tpopyr av | avTod 
ouwrnplav é& €xOpav quay Kal éx 
XElpds TavTWY THY MecouyTey pas, 
mounoar €Aeos pera TOV TaTépw meav 
kal penoOjvat diadjKns aylas avTod, 


8pxov dv Spocev mpds ABpady 
Tov TaTépa Huar, 
Tov Sodvat juiv dpoBws éx xerpds 
€xOpav pucbévtas 
Aarpevew avT@ év dordryre 
kal dixacootyy 
évériov avtod macats Tats 


Teepats NOv. 


Kal od 6é, masdlov, rpopyrns 
‘YWlorov krnOjon, 
mpotopevon yap évw7mov Kuplou 


éroupdoat ddovs avTod, 
Tod dodvar yvGouw owrnplas 
T@ Aaw avrov 
év adécet dpaptlov, 
61a omAdyxva édéous Oeod judy, 
év ols emirkéWerar Huds 
dvaronrh ef dpous, 
émipavat Tots év oxére Kal oxig 
Oavdrov Kadnuévors 
Tov KaTevOdvat Tovs mbdas NUdY 
els ddv elpyyys. 


There is a manifest break at the end of ver. 75. 


The relation between new and old may again be 


THE OLo TESTAMENT. 


1 3 Buhoyaras Kipios 6 Oeds "Ioparnr. 
AUTpwow dméorerhev 
TO NaG avrod. 
8 exe? eEavater® Képas T@ Aaveld, 
4 Gvarene? Képas Tavtl TH oikwIopahh. 
5 SWdoe Képas Xpiorob avrod. 


6 Eowoev avTons € ex xewpav pucotyruv Kar 
éurpwaaTto avrovs ek Xetpos €xOpod. 
1 dca els ahyBevav 7T@ laxwB, 
&eov TQ ABpadp, Kabdre Gpmooas 
TOUS TATPAL LOY. 
8 éuvicOn Tis dia dHKns auTov. 
9 € nyo On o 6 Beds Tis, SiaOnkns avrov ris 
mpos "ABpady, kal Ioadk, cal laxwp, 
0 Srrws oTjow Tov Spkov Hou, bv 
@poca Tots TaTpdow buav, Tod Sodvat 
auTots yiv péovcay yadda Kal wére, 
U1 euvjcOn els Tov aldva diaOhKns avrou 
Abyou ob éverelharo els xuAlas yeveds, 
dy débero TH ’ABpadu, 
kal Tov Spkov avrou TH ’Ioadk. 


LD -Rya efarrocré\Xw Tov Ayyeddv pov 
kal emiBdéperat oddv mpd mpoowmov 


pov. 
B éroudoare Thy oddv Kuplov. 


14 kaOnuévous év oxéret, 
1 ol karouxovytes ev xdpa kal oxlg 
Oavdrou pas Adupe ed’ duds, 
16 kaOnuevous ev oxéret kal oxla 
Gavdrov. 


The first 


of these two portions thus separated may be divided into three 


1 Ps, xli. 14, Ixxii. 18, evi. 48. 

4 Ezek. xxix. 21. 51 Sam. ii. 10, 
8 Ps. cvi. 45. 9 Exod. ii. 24. 
12 Mal. ili. 1. Ys. xl. 3. 

16 Ps, cvii. 10. 


7 Ps. cxi. 9. 
§ Ps. cvi. 10, 
nO er xin 5s 
1 Ts, xlii. 7. 


8 Ps. cxxxii. 17. 
7 Mic. vii. 20. 
1 Ps. cv. 8, 9. 
15 Ts, ix. 1. 


40 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |I. 66-70. 


strophes (68, 69; 70-72; 73-75), and the second into two (76, 
773 78, 79): 

67. émdjobn mvedpatos dyiou Kat énpopyteucev. See on ver. 15. 
The prophesying must not be confined to the prediction of the 
future ; it is the delivery of the Divine message; speaking under 
God’s influence, and in His Name. Zacharias sees in his son the 
earnest and guarantee of the deliverance of Israel. 

In some texts érpog¢jrevcev has been altered into the more regular poeg7)- 
tevoev, but everywhere in N.T. (even Jude 14) the augment should precede 
the prep. in this compound. This is intelligible, seeing that there is ne 


simple verb ¢yrevw. Comp. Num. xi. 25, 26; Ecclus. xliii. 13, and the 
similar forms #gcev and qvoEev. Win. xii. 5, p. 84. 


68. Eddoyntés Kupios 6 Ocds tod “Iopand. Not éoriv but ef is 
to be supplied. The line is verbatim as Ps. xli. 14, lxxii. 18, 
cvi. 48, excepting that in LXX rod is omitted. In N.T. eidAoyyrés 
is used of God, but never of men: see on ver. 42. In LXX there 
are a few exceptions: Deut. vii. 14; Ruth ii. 20; 1 Sam. xv. 13, 
XXV. 33. 

emecképato Kal émoincev AUtpwow To Aad adtod. Here, as in 
Ecclus. xxxil. 17, an acc. is to be supplied after érecxéparo; there 
Tov tamewov, here tov Aadv. See on vii. 16. Excepting Heb. ii. 6, 
where it is a quotation from Ps. viii. 5, this verb is used in the 
Hebrew sense (Exod. iv. 31) of Divine visitation by Lk. alone in 
N.T. Comp. Ps. SoZ. iii. 14. No doubt Avtpwow has reference 
to political redemption (ver. 71), but accompanied by and based 
upon a moral and spiritual reformation (vv. 75, 77). Comp. 
IPSHEXxXiy 75 

69. kal jyetpev képas cwtnpias jpiv. For this use of éyeipw 
comp. 7yepev Kvpios cwrjpa 76 “Iopaynd (Judg. ili. 9, 15). In 
Ezek. xxix. 21 and Ps. cxxxii. 17 the verb used is dvaréAAw or 
éfavaréAAw (see table). The metaphor of the horn is very freq. in 
O.T. (x Sam. ii. 10; 2 Sam. xxii. 3; Ps. Ixxy. 5, 6, Tete) ane 
is taken neither from the horns of the altar, nor from the peaks of 
helmets or head-dresses, but from the horns of animals, especially 
bulls. It represents, therefore, primarily, neither safety nor dignity, 
but strength. The wild-ox, wrongly called “unicorn” in AV., was 
proverbial for strength (Num. xxiv. 22; Job xxxix. 9-11; Deut. 
xxxiii. 17). In Horace we have addis cornua pauperi, and in Ovid 
tum pauper cornua sumit. In Ps. xviii. 3 God is called a xépas 
cwrypias. See below on ver. 71. For matdds adtod see on ver. 54. 
“Tn the house of His servant David” is all the more true if Mary 
was of the house of David. But the fact that Jesus was the heir 
of Joseph is sufficient, and this verse is no proof of Mary’s descent 
from David. 

70. Second strophe. Like ver. 55, this is not a parenthesis, 
but determines the preceding statement more exactly. Asa priest, 


L 70-74.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 41 


Zacharias would be familiar with O.T. prophecies. Even if the ray 
before aa aiévos (A C D) were genuine, it would be unlikely that 
Tav dyiwv means “the saints” in app. with tay az aidvos tpopyrar. 
Lk. is fond of the epithet dycos (ver. 72, ix. 26; Acts ill. 21, x. 22, 
xxi. 28). He is also fond of the periphrasis Ba sae (Acts 
i. 16, ii. 18, 2h iv. 25): comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22. And the 
expression dm aidvos is peculiar to him in N.T. (Acts iii. 21, 
xv. 18). It is used vaguely for “of old time.” Here it does not 
mean that there have been Prophets “since the world began.” 

Comp. oi yeyavres | ot ar aidvos (Gen. vi. 4), and Peeper Kal 
ratadéyyet Tous am’ aidves pyropas (Longin. xxxiv.), and adverbially 
Hes. Theog. 609). 

71. cwrmpiay é& éxOpav fpav. This is in app. with xépas 
owrnpias and epexegetic of it. That the eyOpdv judy and trav 
pucovvTwy qpas are identical is clear from Ps. xviii. 18 and cvi. 10 
(see table). ‘The heathen are meant. Gentile domination prevents 
the progress of God’s kingdom, and the Messiah will put an end 
to this hindrance. Comp. Exod. xviii. 10. 


Neither cwrnpla (vv. 69, 77, xix. 9; Acts iv. 12, etc.) nor Td cwrypiov 
(ii. 30, ili. 6; Acts xxviii. 28) occur in Mt. or Mk. The former occurs once 
in Jn. (iv. 22). Both are common in LXX. The primary meaning is 
preservation fsom bodily harm (Gen. xxvi. 31; 2 Sam. xix. 2), especially of 
the great occasions on which God had preserved Israel (Exod. xiv. 13, xv. 2; 
2 Chron. xx. 17); and hence of the deliverance to be wrought by the Messiah 
(Is. xlix. 6, 8), which is the meaning here. Comp. tod xupiov 7 owrnpla én’ 
olxov "Iopanr els eddppoctvnv aldvioy (Ps. Sol. x. 9; and very similarly xii. 7). 
As the idea of the Messianic salvation became enlarged and purified, the word 
which so often expressed it came gradually to mean much the same as 
** eternal life.” See on Rom. i. 16, 


72. wovnoa EXeos peta, x.t-A, This is the purpose of jyepev 
xépas. The phrase is freq. in LXX (Gen. xxiv. 12; Judg. i. 24, 
vill. 35; Ruth i. 8; 1 Sam. xx. 8, etc.). Comp. per’ airijs, ver. 
58. ‘In delivering us God purposed to deal mercifully with our 
fathers.” ‘This seems to imply that the fathers are conscious of 
what takes place: comp. vv. 54, 55. Besides the passages given 
in the table, comp. Lev. xxvi. 42, and see Wsctt. on Heb. ix. 
15, 16. 

73. Spkov Sv Gpocev mpos “ABpadp. Third strophe. The oath 
is recorded Gen. xxii. 16-18: comp. xxvi. 3. 


It is best to take dpxov in app. with diafijxns, but attracted in case to 
éy: comp zz. 4, 20, and see on ii. 19. It is true that in LXX prycO va is 
found with an acc. (Exod. xx. 8; Gen. ix. 16). But would Lk. give it first 
a gen. and then an acc. in the same sentence? For the attraction of the 
antecedent to the relative comp. xx. 17 and Acts x. 36. 

Gpooev pds ’A. So also in Hom. (Od. xiv. 331, xix. 288): but see 
on ver. 13. 

74. tod Sotvar qpiv. This is probably to be taken after dpxoy as the 
contents and purpose of the oath; and the promise that ‘‘thy seed shall 


42 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 74-77. 


possess the gate of his enemies” (Gen. xxii. 17) is in favour of this. But it 
is possible to take ro dodvat as epexegetic of ver. 72; or again, as the 
purpose of #fyetpev xépas, and therefore parallel to ver. 72. This last is not 
likely, because there is no rod with rovjom. This Tod c. zz/fin. of the purpose 
or result is a favourite constr. with Lk. (vv. 77, 79, ii. 24, where see reff.). 
It marks the later stage of the language, in which aim and purpose become 
confused with result. Perhaps the gen. of the aim may be explained on the 
analogy of the part. gen. after verbs of hitting or missing. 


€x xetpos €xOpav. It does not follow from écudrynte cai dSixae- 
oovvy that spiritual enemies are meant. The tyranny of heathen 
conquerors was a hindrance to holiness. In addition to the 
parallel passages quoted in the table, comp. Ps. xviii. 18, picerat 
pe &€ €xOpadv pov Suvaray kal éx tov pucovyTwv pe. 
For the acc. pucdévras after juty comp. col 6¢ cvyyveéun Aévew 745” orl, 
Bi) TaoxXoveay ws éy@ kaxGs (Eur. AZed. 814). 


75. Natpevew atts. Comp. Aarpetoere 75 Ocd ev TH Sper TovT 
(Exod. ili. 12). We must take évdm-ov aitod with Aatpevew aira. 
The service of the redeemed and delivered people is to be a 
priestly service, like that of Zacharias (ver. 8). For évémoy see on 
ver. 15, and for \atpedew on iv. 8. The combination 6ovdtys kal 
Sikarocdvy becomes common ; but perhaps the earliest instance is 
Wisd. ix. 3. We have it Eph. iv. 24 and Clem. Rom. xlviii.: 
comp. Tit. i. 8 and 1 Thes. ii. ro. 

76. Kal od 8€, matdiov. Here the second part of the hymn, and 
the distinctively predictive portion of it, begins. The Prophet 
turns from the bounty of Jehovah in sending the Messiah to the 
work of the Forerunner. ‘‘ Buz thou also, child,” or “ Yea and 
thou, child” (RV.). Neither the xaé nor the dé must be neglected. 
There is combination, but there is also contrast. Not “ my child”: 
the personal relation is lost in the high calling. The xAy@yon has 
the same force as in ver. 32: not only “shalt be,” but “shalt be 
acknowledged as being.” 

Tpotropedon yap évdmuov Kuptov. Comp. Kupios 6 @eds cov 6 
MpoTropevdmevos TPO Tpoowrov gov, Kaha eAdAnoev Kvpuos (Deut. 
xxxi. 3). Here Kvpfov means Jehovah, not the Christ, as is clear 
from vv. 16, 17. , 

77. Tod Sodvar yvdouw owrnptas TH Naw aitos. This is the aim 
and end of the work of the Forerunner. In construction it comes 
after érouudoat ddovs aitod. We may take év apécer dpaptiwv aitav 
with either dotva, or yv@ouw, Or gwrypias. The last is best. John 
did not grant remission of sins; and to make “&zxozw/ledge of 
salvation” consist in remission of sins, yields no very clear sense. 
But that sa/vation is found in remission of sins makes excellent 
sense (Acts v. 31). The Messiah brings the cwrnpta (vv. 69, 71): 
the Forerunner gives the knowledge of it to the people, as consist- 
ing, not in a political deliverance from the dominion of Rome but 


I 77-79.| THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 43 


in a spiritual deliverance from the dominion of sin. This is the 
irst mention of the “remission of sins” in the Gospel narrative. 

78. Sa omAdyxva éddous Ceod Hpav. ‘Che concluding strophe, 
referring to the whole of the preceding sentence, or (if we take a 
single word) to zporopevoy. It is decause of God’s tender mercy 
that the child will be able to fulfil his high calling and to do all 
this. Comp. Zest. X/Z. Patr. Levi iv., €ws émurxépytar Kipios mavra 
ra vn ev orAdyvots viod aitovd Ews aidvos. 

Originally the or\dyxva were the ‘‘inward parts,” esp. the upper portions, 
the heart, lungs, and liver (uzscera thoracts), as distinct from the év7epa or bowels 
(wiscera abdominis). The Greeks made the ox\dyxva the seat of the emotions, 
anger, anxiety, pity, etc. By the Jews these feelings were placed in the évrepa; 
and hence in LXX we have not only omAdyxva (which may include the év7epa), 
but also xovAla and éyxara used for the affections. Moreover in Hebr. literature 
these words more often represent compassion or love, whereas orAdyxva in class. 
Grk. is more often used of wrath (Aristoph. Raz. 844, 1006; Eur. 4/c. 1009). 
‘‘ Heart” is the nearest English equivalent for omAdyxva (RV. Col. iii. 123 
Philem. 12, 20). See Lft. on Phil. i. 8. ‘* Because of our God’s heart of 
mercy,” z.¢. merciful heart, is the meaning here. For this descriptive or 
characterizing gen. comp. Jas. i. 25, ii. 4; Jude 18. Some would make yvaouw 
cwrnplas an instance of it, “‘ saving knowledge,” z.e. that brings salvation. But 
this is not necessary. For év ois see on év Bpaxlov, ver. 51. For émuokéetar! 
comp. vii. 17; Ecclus. xlvi. 14; Judith vill. 33 ; and see on ver. 68. 


dvatoh} é€ dipous. “Rising from on high.” The word is used 
of the rising of the sum (Rev. vil. 2, xvi. 12; Hom. Od. xii. 4) and 
of stars (Aésch. P.V. 457; Eur. Phen. 504). Here the rising of 
the heavenly body is put for the heavenly body itself. Comp. the 
use of dvareAdw in Is. lx. 1 and Mal. iv. 2. Because sun, moon, 
and stars do not rise from on high, some join e€ tous with 
émiaxewerat, which is admissible. But, as dvarody means the sun 
or star itself, whose light comes from on high, this is not necessary. 
Seeing that dvaré\Aw is used of the rising or sprouting of slants, 
and that the Messiah is sometimes called “the Branch” (Jer. xxiii. 
5) XXxili. 15; Zech. ili. 8, vi. 12), and that in LXX this is expressed 
by dvaroA7, some would adopt that meaning here. But e& tous, 
éripavat, and xarevfdvae are conclusive against it. These expres- 
sions agree well with a rising sun or star, but not with a sprouting 
branch. 

79. émupavat Tots ev oxdter Kal ota Oavdrou Kadynpévous. For 
émipavar comp. Acts xxvii. 20, and for the form Ps. xxx. 17, cxvii. 
27. In 3 Mac. vi. 4 we have 30 @apad. . . drddeoas, Béyyos 
emipavas éAéous IopaiA yéve. Note that the xa@ypevous ev oxdret 
of Is. xlii. 7 and the oxia @avdrov of Is. ix. 1 are combined here as 
in Ps. cvii. 10 (see table). Those who hold that these hymns are 


1 This is the reading of § B Syr. Arm. Goth. Boh. and virtually of L, 
which has émecxéWarrar. Godet defends éreoxéyiiro, because Zacharias would 
not suddenly turn from the past to the future; but this thought would lead to 
the corruption of the more difficult reading. 


44 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [LZ 79, 80. 


written in the interests of Ebionism have to explain why zremedype 
vous év mTwxela (Ps. cvil. 10) is omitted. 

Tob KaTeuOdvar Tols Tddas Hav eis 68dv eipyyns. For the constr 
comp. vv. 74, 77. Those who sat in darkness did not use their 
feet: the light enables them to do so, and to use them profitably. 
The 74 shows that Jews as well as Gentiles are regarded as being 
in darkness until the Messianic dawn. ‘The way of peace” is the 
way that leads to peace, especially peace between God and His 
people (Ps. xxix. 11, Ixxxv. 9, cxix. 165; Jer. xiv. 13). It was one 
of the many blessings which the Messiah was to bring (ii. 14, x. 5, 
xxiv. 36). See on Rom.i. 7 and comp. 606v owrnpias (Acts xvi. 17). 

80. TS 8é madiov nugave kal expatatodro mvedpatt. The verse 
forms a set conclusion to the narrative, as if here one of the 
Aramaic documents used by Lk. came to an end. Comp. ii. 40, 
52; Judg. xiii. 24, 25; 1 Sam. ii. 26. In LXX avdédvw is never, as 
here, intrans. Thus avfavé oe opddpa (Gen. xvii. 6); niéyOy ro 
ma.dtov (Gen. xxi. 8). In N.T. it is used of physical growth (ii. 40, 
Xil. 27, xiii. 19), and of the spread of the Gospel (Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, 
xix. 20). With éxparaodro rvevuare comp. Eph. iii. 16; and for 
the dat. Rom. iv. 20 and 1 Cor. xiv. 20. 

jv ev tais epnpots. The wilderness of Judzea, west of the Dead 
Sea, is no doubt meant. But the name is not given, because the 
point is, not that he lived in any particular desert, but that he lived 
in desert places and not in towns or villages. He lived a solitary 
life. Hence nothing is said about his being “in favour with men”; 
for he avoided men until his dvadeéts brought him disciples. This 
fact answers the question whether John was influenced by the 
Essenes, communities of whom lived in the wilderness of Judza. 
We have no reason to believe that he came in contact with them. 
Excepting the ascetic life, and a yearning for something better 
than obsolete Judaism, there was little resemblance between their 
principles and his. He preached the Kingdom of God; they 
preached isolation. They abandoned society ; he strove to reform 
it. See Godet zz /oco and D.Z.? art. “Essenes.” Lk. alone uses 
the plur. ai épypor (v. 16, viii. 29). 

€ws pepas avadelgews attod mpos tov “lopaynh. John probably 
went up to Jerusalem for the feasts, and on those occasions he and 
the Messiah may have met, but without John’s recognizing Him as 
such. Here only in N.T. does avadeérs occur. In Ecclus. xlii. 6 
we have avadeéw xpdvwv as a function of the moon. In Plut. the 
word is used of the proclaiming or inauguration of those who are 
appointed to office (Alar. viii. ; C. Grac. xii.). It is also used of 
the decication of a temple (Strabo, viii. 5. 23, p. 381). Comp. 
avédeéev Of the appointment of the Seventy (x. 1). It was John 
himselt sho proclaimed the inauguration of his office by manifesting 
hims:f o the people at God’s command (iii. 2). 


THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 45 


NoTE ON THE USE OF éyévero. 


More than any other Evangelist Lk. makes use of the Hebr. formula, éyévero 
dé or kal éyévero. But with it he uses a variety of constructions, some of which 
are modelled on the classical use of ovvé8n, which Lk. himself employs Acts xxi. 
35. The following types are worth noting. 

(a) The éyévero and that which came to pass are placed side by side as 
_ parallel statements in the indicative mood without a conjunction. 

i. 8. éyévero 6¢ év TG leparevew airdv . . . Adaxe TOD Oumaca. 
i. 23. Kal éyévero ws émdjobnoay ai juépar Tis Aecroupylas avrov, ar7AdOer. 
- i. 41. Kal éyévero ws Hxoucev Tov doracpuov THs M. 7’E., éoxlprncev 7d Bpégos. 

ii. 1. éyévero dé év tats juépars éxelvaus €E7pAOev dbyua. 

Of the same type are i. 59, il. 6, 15, 46, vii. II, ix. 18, 28, 29, 33, 37, xi. I, 
14, 27, XVil. 14, XViil. 35, XIX. 29, xx. I, xxiv. 30, 51. In viii. 40, ix. 57, x. 
38 the éyévero 6€ is probably spurious. In the Acts this type does not occur. 

(8) The éyévero and that which came to pass are coupled together by xal, 
which may be regarded as (I) uniting two co-ordinate statements; or (2) 
epexegetic, “It came to pass, zamely” ; or (3) introducing the apodosis, as 
often in class. Grk., ‘‘ It came to pass that.” 

v. I. éyévero 56 &v TQ Tov BxAOv emixeioba aiT@ . . . Kal abrds Fv éorws. 
v. 17. Kal éyévero év pug TOy Huepwv kal abrds qv diddoKwy. 

viii. I. Kal éyévero €v TH Kabek7s Kal abrds duddever. 

viii. 22. éyévero 6¢ év pug T&v juepwv Kal abrds dvéBy els motor. 

Of the same type are v. 12, ix. 51, xiv. I, xvil. II, xix. 15, xxiv. 43 Acts 
y. 7. It will be observed that in nearly all cases the xal is followed by avrés or 
avrol. Inv. 12 and xxiv. 4 it is followed by the Hebraistic /dov, and in xix. 15 
we have simply xal trey. 

(y) That which takes place is put in the infinitive mood, and this depends 
upon éyévero. 

iii, 21. éyévero O¢ év TQ BarricOjvar dravta Tov Aadv . . . dvewxORvar Tov 
ovpavdr. 

vi. 1. evyévero 58 év caBBdrw SiamopeterOar avrdy did orropluwy. 

vi. 12. éyévero dé év tats nuépats Tavrass eEehOetv avrdv els Td bpos. 

Xvi. 22. éyévero 6¢ drrobavety Tov Trwx bv. 

This type of construction is common in the Acts: iv. 5, ix. 32, 37, 43, xi 26, 
xiv. I, xvi. 16, xix. I, xxii. 6, 17, xxviii. 8, 17. 

(6) In the Acts we have several other forms still more closely assimilated to 
classical constructions, the éyévero being placed later in the sentence, or being 
preceded by as or dre. 

ix. 3. év d¢7@ ropevecOar éyévero abrov éyylfew TH Aayacke. 

xxi. I. ws 0¢ éyévero dvaxOjvat juds . . . HAGouer els Thy KG. 

xxi. 5. dre de éyévero ebaprioa: judas Tas Tuepas, eEEPovTes erropevducbo. 
x. 25. ws dé éyévero Tov eloeNOeiv tov Ilérpov, . . . mpocextvncer. 

In these last three instances we are far removed from the Hebraistic types (a) 
and (8). The last is very peculiar ; but comp. xxvii. I and the exact parallel in 
Acta Barnab. Apocryp. vii. quoted by Lumby, os dé éyévero Tod Tedécar airovs 
dcdaoKovras. 

We have obtained in this analysis the following results. Of the two Hebra- 
istic types, (a) is very common in the first two chapters of the Gospel, where Lk. 
is specially under the influence of Hebrew thought and literature, and is probably 
translating from the Aramaic ; but (a) is not found at all in the Acts, and (8) 
occurs there only once. On the other hand, of the more classical types, (y) is 
much less common in the Gospel than in the Acts, while the forms grouped 
under (6) do not occur in the Gospel at all. All which is quite what we might 
have expected. In the Acts there is much less room for Hebrew influences than 
there is in the Gospel ; and thus the more classical forms of construction become 
there the prevailing types. 


46 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [TL 


Il. 1-20. Zhe Birth of the Saviour, its Proclamation by the 
Angels, and tts Verification by the Shepherds. 


The second of the narratives in the second group (i. 57-ii. 40) 
in the Gospel of the Infancy (i. 5-ii. 52). It corresponds to the 
Annunciation (i. 26-38) in the first group. Like the sections which 
precede and which follow, it has a clearly marked conclusion. And 
these conclusions have in some cases a very marked resemblance. 
Comp. ii. 20 with i. 56, and ii. 40 and 52 with i. 80. This 
similarity of form points to the use of material from one and 
the same source, and carefully arranged according to the sub- 
ject-matter. This source would be some member of the Holy 
Family (see on i. 5). The marks of Lk.’s style, accompanied by 
Hebraistic forms of expression, still continue; and we infer, as 
before, that he is translating from an Aramaic document. The 
section has three marked divisions: the Birth (1-7), the Angelic 
Proclamation (8-14), and the Verification (15-20). The con- 
nexion with what precedes is obvious. We have just been told 
how the promise to Zacharias was fulfilled ; and we are now to be 
told how the promise to Mary was fulfilled. 


1-7. The Birth of the Saviour at Bethlehem at the Time of the 
Enrolment.. The extreme simplicity of the narrative is in very 
marked contrast with the momentous character of the event thus 
narrated. We have a similar contrast between matter and form in 
the opening verses of S. John’s Gospel. The difference between 
the evangelical account and modern Lives of Christ is here very 
remarkable. The tasteless and unedifying elaborations of the 
apocryphal gospels should also be compared.! 

1-3. How Bethlehem came to be the Birthplace of Jesus 
Christ, although Nazareth was the Home of His Parents. This 
explanation has exposed Lk. to an immense amount of criticism, 
which has been expressed and sifted in a manner that has produced 
a voluminous literature. In addition to the commentaries, some 


1 “Such marvellous associations have clung for centuries to these verses, that 
it is hard to realise how absolutely naked they are of all ornament. We are 
obliged to read them again and again to assure ourselves that they really do set 
forth what we call the great miracle of the world. If, on the other hand, the 
Evangelist was possessed by the conviction that he was not recording a miracle 
which had interrupted the course of history and deranged the order of human 
life, but was telling of a divine act which explained the course of history and 
restored the order of human life, one can very well account for his calmness” 
(F. D. Maurice, Lectures on S. Luke, p. 28, ed. 1879). 


pa oe | THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 47 


of the following may be consulted, and from Schtirer and Herzog 
further information about the literature may be obtained. 

S. J. Andrews, Zzfe of our Lord, pp. 71-81, T. & T. Clark, 
1892; T. Lewin, ast Sacri, 955, Longmans, 1865; J. B. 
McClellan, Zhe New Testament of our Lord and Saviour, i. pp. 
392-399, Macmillan, 1875; C. F. Nosgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, 
pp. 172-174, Beck, 1891; *E. Schiirer, Jewish People in the Time of 
Jesus Christ, i. 2, pp. 105-143, T. & T. Clark, 1890; B. Weiss, 
Leben Jesu, i. 2. 4, "Berlin, 1882; Eng. tr. pp. 250-252; K. Wieseler, 
Chronological Synopsis of the "Four Gospels, pp. 66-106, 129-135, 
Deighton, 1864; O. Zockler, Handbuch der Ti heologischen Wissen- 
schaften, 1. 2, pp. 188-190, Beck, 1889; A. W. Zumpt, Das 
Geburtsjahr Christi (reviewed by Woolsey in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 
1870), Leipzig, 1869; D.B.? art. “ Cyrenius”; Herzog, PREZ? 
xiii. art. “Schatzung”; P. Schaff, Azstory of the Church, i. pp. 
121-125, T. & T. Clark, 1883; Ramsay, Was Christ Born at 
Bethlehem ? 1899; Hastings, D.B. art. Chronology of N.T. 

1. *Eyéveto 8€ ev tais Hpepats exelvars e&AOev Sédypa mapa Kat- 
capos Adyovorou atroypddecbar tacav Thy oikounévny. For the constr. 
see detached note at the end of ch. i.; and for & rais jpépais 
éxeivats see On i. 5 and 39. The time of the birth of John is 
roughly indicated. Even in class. Grk. the first meaning of 8dypa, 
as “opinion, philosophic tenet,” is not very common (Plat. Aef. 
538 C); it is more often a “public decree, ordinance.” This is 
always the meaning in N.T., whether an ordinance of the Roman 
Emperor (Acts xvii. 5), or of the Apostles (Acts xvi. 4; comp. 
Ign. Mag. xiii.; Didaché, xi. 3), or of the Mosaic Law (Col. ii. 14; 
Eph. ii. 15; comp. 3 Mac. i. 3; Jos. Anz. xv. 5. 3). For é&\ev 
Séypa comp. Dan. ii. 13 (Theod.). In Daniel doypa is freq. of a 
royal decree (iii. 10, iv. 3, vi. 9, 10). See Lft. on Col. ii. 14. 

dmoypdpec8ar. Probably passive, ut describeretur (Vulg.), not 
middle, as in ver. 3. The present is here used of the continuous 
enrolment of the multitudes ; the aorist in ver. 5 of the act of one 
person. The verb refers to the writing off, copying, or entering 
the names, professions, fortunes, and families of subjects in the 
public register, generally with a view to ¢axation (drotipnots or 
tiunua). It is a more general word than dzotiudw, which implies 
assessment as well as enrolment. But it is manifest that the dze- 
yeay here and in Acts v. 37 included assessment. The Jews were 
exempt from military service; and enrolment for that purpose 
cannot be intended. In the provinces the census was mainly for 
purposes of taxation. 

macav Thy oikounevnv. ‘The whole inhabited world,” ze. the 
Roman Empire, ordis terrarum.. Perhaps in a loose way the ex- 
pression might be used of the provinces only. But both the zacav 
and the context exclude the limitation to Palestine, a meaning 


48 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [I1.1. 


which the expression never has, not even in Jos. Avzé. viii. 3. 4. 
See on iv. 5 and xxi. 26. In inscriptions Roman Emperors are 
called kvptou THs oixovjévns. The verse implies a decree for a general 
census throughout the empire. 

It must be confessed that mo direct evidence of any such decree 
exists beyond this statement by Lk., and the repetitions of it by 
Christian writers. But a variety of items have been collected, 
which tend to show that a Roman census in Judeea at this time, 
in accordance with some general instructions given by Augustus, 
is not improbable. 


1. The rationarium or rationes tmberii, which was a sort of balance-sheet 
published periodically by the emperor (Suet. Aug. xxviii.; Cal. xvi.). 2. The 
libellus or breviarium tottus tmperiz, which Augustus deposited with his will 
(Tac. Aum. i. 11. 5,6; Suet. Aug. ci.). 3. The zxdex rerum gestarum to be 
inscribed on his tomb, which was the original of the M/armor Ancyranum. 
But these only indicate the orderly administration of the empire. A general 
census would have been useful in producing such things; but that does not 
prove that it took place. Two passages in Dion Cassius are cited; but one of 
these (liv. 35) refers to a registration of the emperor’s private property, and 
the other (lv. 13) to a census of Roman citizens. If Augustus made a 
general survey of the empire, of which there is evidence from the commen- 
tarit of Agrippa mentioned by Pliny (Vat. Hist. iii. 2. 17), this also would 
have been conveniently combined with a general census, although it does 
not show that such a census was ordered. Of some of the provinces we 
know that mo census was held in them during the reign of Augustus. But 
it is probable that in the majority of them a census took place; and the 
statement of so accurate a writer as Lk., although unsupported by direct evi- 
dence, may be accepted as substantially true: viz. that in the process of reduc- 
ing the empire to order, Augustus had required that a census should be held 
throughout most of it. So that Lk. groups the various instances under one ex- 
pression, just as in Acts xi. 28 he speaks of the famines, which took place in 
different parts of the empire in the time of Claudius, as a famine é¢’ 6p olkov- 
pévnv. Of the Christian witnesses none is of much account. Riess seems to be 
almost alone in contending that Orosius (A/7st. Rom. vi. 22. 6) had any 
authority other than Lk. Cassiodorus (Varéarwm Epp. iii. 52) does not men- 
tion a census of persons at all clearly ; but if ovd2s Romanus agris divisus cen- 
suque descriptus est means such a census, he may be referring to Lk. ii. 1. The 
obscure statement of Isidore of Spain (Ztymologzarum, v. 26. 4; Opera, ili. 229, 
ed. Arevallo) may either be derived from Lk. or refer to another period. What 
Suidas states (Lex. s.v. dmoypag7) partly comes from Lk. and partly is improb- 
able. At the best, all this testimony is from 400 to 1000 years after the event, 
and cannot be rated highly. The passages are given in full by Schiirer (Jewzsh 
People in the T. of J. C. i. 2, pp. 116, 117). But it is urged that a Roman 
census, even if held elsewhere, could not have been made in Palestine during the 
time of Herod the Great, because Palestine was not yet a Roman province. In 
A.D. 6, 7, when Quirinius certainly did undertake a Roman census in Judea, 
si-h a proceeding was quite in order. Josephus shows that in taxation Herod 
act:d independently (Azz. xv. 10. 4, xvi. 2. 5, xvii. 2. I, 11. 2; comp. xvil. 8. 4). 
Vaat Ilerod paid tribute to Rome is not certain ; but, if so, he would pay it out 
of taxes raised by himself. The Romans would not assess his subjects for the 
tribute which he had to pay. Josephus, whose treatment of the last years of 
ITerod is very full, does not mention any Roman census at that time. On the 
contrary, he implies that, even after the death of Herod, so long as Palestine 
was ruled by its own princes, there was no Roman taxation ; and he states that 


11. 1, 2.] THE GOSPEL OF: TIE INFANCY 49 


the census undertaken by Quirinius A.D. 7 excited intense opposition, presum- 
ably as being an innovation (Av#. xviii. I. I, 2. I). 

In meeting this objection, let us admit with Schiirer and Zumpt that the case 
of the Clitz is not parallel. Tacitus (Avz. vi. 41. 1) does not say that the 
Romans held a census in the dominions of Archelaus, but that Archelaus wished to 
have a census after the Roman fashion. Nevertheless, the objection that Augustus 
would not interfere with Herod’s subjects in the matter of taxation is untenable. 
When Palestine was divided among Herod’s three sons, Augustus ordered that 
the taxes of the Samaritans should be reduced by one-fourth, because they had 
not taken part in the revolt against Varus (Aw#. xvil. 11. 4; B. /. ti. 6. 3); and 
this was before Palestine became a Roman province. If he could do that, he 
could require information as to taxation throughout Palestine ; and the obsequi- 
cus Herod would not attempt to resist. The value of such information would 
be great. It would show whether the tribute paid (if tribute was paid) was 
adequate ; and it would enable Augustus to decide how to deal with Palestine 
in the future. If he knew that Iferod’s health was failing, he would be anxious 
to get the information before Herod’s death; and thus the census would take 
place just at the time indicated by Lk., viz. in the last months of the reign of 
Herod. 

2. airn dmoypady mpdrn éyévero. This may be accepted as 
certainly the true reading ;2 and the meaning of it is not really 
doubtful. ‘This took place as a first enrolment, when Q. was 
governor of Syria.” The object of the remark is to distinguish 
the census which took Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem from the 
one undertaken by Q. in A.D. 6, 7, at which time Q. was governor 
of Syria. But was he governor B.c. 4, when Herod died? It is 
very difficult to establish this. 

From B.c. 9 to 6 Sentius Saturninus was governor; from B.c. 
6 to 4 Quinctilius Varus. Then all is uncertain until a.p. 6, 
when P. Sulpicius Quirinius becomes governor and holds the 
census mentioned Acts v. 37 and also by Josephus (Ax¢. xviii. 
I. I, 2. 1). It is quite possible, as Zumpt and others have shown, 
that Quirinius was governor of Syria during part of the interval 
between B.c. 4 and A.D. 6, and that his first term of office was 
B.C. 3, 2. But it seems to be impossible to find room for him 
between B.c. 9 and the death of Herod; and, unless we can do 
that, Lk. is not saved from an error in chronology. Tertullian 
states that the census was held by Sentius Saturninus (Adv. Mare. 
iv. 19); and if that is correct we may suppose that it was begun 
by him and continued by his successor. On the other hand, 
Justin Martyr three times states that Jesus Christ was born ézi 
Kvupyviov, and in one place states that this can be officially ascer- 
tained é« tav droypaday tév yevopévew (Afol. i. 34, 46; Dial. 

1 See the treatment to which Herod had to submit in the matter of Sy!leus 
(Jos. Ant. xvi. 9. 3, 4)- 

2 B (supported by 81, 131, 203) has airy droypagh rpcirn éyévero. 

NS has the impossible alrhy amoypagihy éyévero rpdrn. 

D (supported by Orig-Lat.) has atirn éyévero droypagh mpiry. 

Thus all three are against the 7 before droypa¢7 inserted in ACLRZ. 


4 


50 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IZ 2. 


We must be content to leave the difficulty unsolved. But it is 
monstrous to argue that because Lk. has (possibly) made a mistake 
as to Quirinius being governor at this time, therefore the whole 
story about the census and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem is a 
fiction. Even if there was no census at this time, business con- 
nected with enrolment might take Joseph to Bethlehem, and Lk. 
would be correct as to his main facts. That Lk. has confused 
this census with the one in A.D. 6, 7, which he himself mentions 
Acts v. 37, is not credible. We are warranted in maintaining (1) 
that a Roman census in Judea at this time, in accordance with 
instructions given by Augustus, is not improbable; and (2) that 
some Official connexion of Quirinius with Syria and the holding of 
this census is not impossible. The accuracy of Lk. is such that 
we ought to require very strong evidence before rejecting any 
statement of his as an unquestionable blunder. But it is far 
better to admit the possibility of error than to attempt to evade 
this by either altering the text or giving forced interpretations of it. 


The following methods of tampering with the ext have been suggested: to 
regard mpwry as a corruption of mpérw éree through the intermediate wpwret 
(Linwood); to insert mpd ris after éyévero (Michaelis) ; to substitute for Ku- 
pnvlov either KuytiAlov (Huetius), or Kpovlov=Saturnini (Hleumann), or Zaroup- 
vivov (Valesius) ; to omit the whole verse as a gloss (Beza, Pfaff, Valckenaer). 
All these are monstrous. The only points which can be allowed to be doubtful 
in the text are the accentuation of airy and the spelling of Kupyvlov, to which 
may perhaps be added the insertion of the article. 

Among the various z/evpretations may be mentioned— 

(1) Giving mp&ros a comparative force, as in Jn. i. 15, 30: “‘ This taxing 
took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Huschke, Ewald, Caspari) ; 
or, as éoxdrn Tov vidy 7 mirnp éeTedcbTyce (2 Mac. vii. 41) means ‘‘ The mother 
died last of all, and later than her sons,” this may mean, ‘‘ This took place as 
the first enrolment, and before Q. was governor of S.” (Wieseler). But none of 
these passages are parallel: the addition of jyeuovevovros is fatal. When 
mp@tos is comparative it is followed by a simple noun or pronoun. It is 
incredible that Lk., if he had meant this, should have expressed it so clumsily. 

(2) Emphasizing éyévero, as in Acts xi. 28: ‘‘This taxing took effect, 
was carried out, when Q. was governor of S.” (Gumpach, etc.) ; ze. the decree 
was issued in Herod’s time, and executed ten or twelve years later by Q. 
This makes nonsense of the narrative. Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem to be 
enrolled, if no enrolment took place then? There would be some point in 
saying that the census was fizzshed, brought to a close, under Q., after having 
been begun by Herod ; but éyévero cannot possibly mean that. 

(3) Reading and accentuating adr) 7 daoypagy: ‘‘ The raising of the tax 
itself (as distinct from the enrolment and assessment) first took place when Q.,” 
etc. ‘* Augustus ordered a census and it took place, but no money was raised 
until the time of Q.” (Ebrard). This involves giving to daroypa¢7 in ver. 2 
a totally different meaning from dmoypdpeoOa: in ver. I and dmoypdyac@at in 
ver. 5; which is impossible. 

(4) With avrh 7 dwoypagi}, as before: ‘‘The census itself called the first 
took place when Q.,” etc. The better known census under Q. was commonly 
regarded as the first Roman census in Judza: Lk. reminds his readers that 
there had really been an earlier one (Godet). This is very forced, requires the 
insertion of the article, which is almost certainly an interpolation, and assumes 


IL. 2-4.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 51 


that the census of A.D. 6, 7 was generally known as “‘the fivs¢ census.” From 
Acts v. 37 it appears that it was known as “‘¢he census”: no previous or 
subsequent enrolment was taken into account. In his earlier edition Godet 
omitted the 7: in the third (1888) he says that this interpretation requires the 
article (i. p. 170). 

McClellan quotes in illustration of the construction: al7la 6¢ atrn mpwrn 
éyévero To modéuou (Thuc. i. 55. 3); alrn trav mepl OnBas éyévero dpxh kal 
kardoracis mpwrn (Dem, 291. 10); mpurn wey pqvvots evyévero ality Kard ToUTOW 
trav dvdpav (Andoc. iii. 5); atrn mpurn Snuoredhs Kplois éyévero dperfs mpds 
mwAabrov (Aristid. i. 124); and adds the curious remark that ‘‘the Holy Spirit 
would have us note that the Saviour of the World was registered in the jirst 
census of the World !” 


Hyyepovevovtos THs Xupias Kupyviov. Like wjyeudv (xx. 20, 
xxi. 12, etc.) and jyepovia (iii. 1), the verb is generic, and may 
express the office of any ruler, whether emperor, propretor, 
procurator, etc. It does not tell us that Quirinius was /egatus 
in B.c. 4 as he was in a.D. 6. And it should be noted that Justin 
(see above) states that Quirinius was procurator (éritporos) at the 
time of this census (Afo/. i. 34); and that in the only other 
place in which Lk. uses this verb he uses it of a procurator (iil. 1). 
This gives weight to the suggestion that, although Varus was 
legatus of Syria at the time of the enrolment, yet Quirinius may 
have held some office in virtue of which he undertook this census. 
Lk. is probably not giving a mere date. He implies that 
Quirinius was in some way connected with the enrolment. For 
what is known about P. Sulpicius Quirinius see Tac. Azza. ii. 
gomAyelll. 22. 1, 2, 23. 1, and esp. 48; Suet. .77. xlix. . Dion 
Cassius (liv. 48) calls him simply IomAvos ZovArixios. But he 
was not really a member of the old patrician gems Su/picia. The 
familiar word Quirinus (Kvpivos) induced copyists and editors to 
substitute Quirinus for Quirinius. 


B has Kupelvov, but there is no doubt that the name is Quirinius and not 
Quirinus. This is shown, as Furneaux points out in a note on Tac. Azz. ii. 
30. 4, by the MS. readings in Tacitus; by the Greek forms Kuplyios (Strabo, 
12, 6, 5, 569) and Kupijwos (here and Jos. Avz?. xviii. 1. 1), and by Latin 
inscriptions (Orell. 3693, etc.). Quirinius is one of the earliest instances of a 
person bearing two Gentile names. 


8. Kat éemopevovto mdvtes arroypdpeoOar, Exaotos eis Thy EauTOd 
mékw. The «af looks back to ver. 1, ver. 2 being a parenthesis. 
The zavres means all those in Palestine who did not reside at the 
seat of their family. A purely Roman census would have required 
nothing of the kind. If Herod conducted the census for the 
Romans, Jewish customs would be followed. So long as Augustus 
obtained the necessary information, the manner of obtaining it was 
immaterial. Where does Lk. place the death of Herod? 

4. *AvéBy S€ Kat “Iwotp dad tis TadtNaias ex médews NaLapér. 
For dvéBy comp. ver. 42, xvili. 31, xix. 28; Acts xi. 2; and for 


52 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 4,5 


Sé kat see on iii. 9. Note the change of prep. from do to é 
But dzé is used of towns (x. 30; Acts villi. 26, xli. 14, xx. 17, 
etc.), and ék of districts (xxiii. 55; Acts vii. 4, etc.); so that there 
is no special point in the change, although it should be preserved 
in translation. Comp. Jn. i. 45 and xi. 1; also the ex of Lk. 
xxl. +@ with the azo of Acts xxvil. 34. 

eis wow Aauveid. That Bethlehem was David’s birthplace and 
original home is in accordance with 1 Sam. xvii. 12 ff. and xvii. 58 ; 
but both passages are wanting in LXX. In O.T. “the city of 
David” always means the fortress of Zion, formerly the stronghold 
of the Jebusites (2 Sam. v. 7,9; 1 Chron. xi. 5, 7), and in LXX 
moXts in this phrase commonly has the article. Bethlehem 1s about 
six miles from Jerusalem. Note that Lk. does not connect (~hrist’s 
birth at Bethlehem with prophecy. 


fits kadcirar ByOdecp. In late Greek 8o7us is sometimes scarcely dis- 
tinguishable from 8s: comp. Acts xvii. 10, But in ix. 30 (as in Acts xxiii. 14, 
xxvill. 18, and Eph. i. 23, which are sometimes cited as instances of éo7s= 
8s) there may be special point in doris. Even here it may ‘‘denote an 
attribute which is the essential property of the antecedent,” and | may possibly 
refer to the meaning of Bethlehem. Comp. wédw xrioas TQUTHV, Tes vov 
Méug¢is kadetroe (Hdt. ii. 99. 7). 


ByOdeeu. “House of Bread”; one of the most ancient 
towns in Palestine. It is remarkable that David did nothing 
for Bethlehem, although he retained affection for it (2 Sam. 
Xxlil. 15); and that Jesus seems never to have visited it again. 
In Jn. vii. 42 it is called a xan, and no special interest seems 
to have attached to the place for many years after the birth of 
Christ. Hadrian planted a grove of Adonis there, which con- 
tinued to exist from A.D. 135 to 315. About 330 Constantine 
built the present church. D.ZB.? art. “Bethlehem.” The modern 
name is Beit Lahm; and, as at Nazareth, the population is almost 
entirely Christian. 

oixou k. Tatpias. Both words are rather indefinite, and either 
may include the other. Here otxos seems to be the more com- 
prehensive ; otherwise «ai zatpiaés would be superfluous. Usually 
matpia is the wider term. That a village carpenter should be able 
to prove his descent from David is not improbable. The two 
grandsons of S. Jude, who were taken before Domitian as 
descendants of David, were labourers (Eus. @. £. iii. 20. 1-8). 

5. droypdpaca. ‘To get himself enrolled.” The aorist of 
his single act, the present (ver. 3) of a series of such acts. Both 
are middle, while droypdédeofar in ver. 1 is probably passive. 
We must not take otv Mapidp with droypdpacfa: it belongs to 
avéBy. It is essential to the narrative that she should go up with 
with him; not so that she should be enrolled with him. In a 
Roman census women paid the poll-tax, but were not obliged to 


II. 5-7.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 53 


come in persun. That Mary had property in Bethlehem is a con- 
jecture which 1s almost disproved by her resourcelessness in the 
place. And if it was necessary for her to come, because she also 
was of David’s line, would not Lk. have written d1a 76 elvat adtous 
e€ oixov x. 7. A.P This reading is found in Syr-Sin.: ‘ because 
they were both of the house of D.” It is fuiile to argue that a 
woman in her condition would not have gone unless she was com- 
pelled: therefore Lk. represents her as being compelled: there- 
fore he has made a mistake. She would be anxious at all risks 
not to be separated from Joseph. Lk. does not even imply that 
her presence was obligatory ; and, if he had said that it was, we 
do not know enough about the matter to say whether he would 
have been wrong. Had there been a law which required her to 
remain at home, then Lk. might be suspected of an error. For 
avy see on 1. 56. 

TH epvyoteupévy atte, ovon éyxvw. The yvvarxi of A, Vulg. 
Syr. and Aeth. is a gloss, but a correct one. Had she been only 
his betrothed (i. 27; Mt. i. 18), their travelling together would 
have been impossible. But by omitting yuvac«i Lk. intimates 
what Mt. states i. 25. The ovoy introduces, not a mere fact, but 
the reason for what has just been stated. Not, he had her with 
him, and she happened to be with child; but, he took her with 
him, “‘ decause she was with child.” After what is related Mt. i. 19 
he would not leave her at this crisis. See on i. 24. 

6, 7. The Birth of the Saviour at Bethlehem. The Gosfe/ of 
Pseudo-Matthew (xiii.) represents the birth as taking place before 
Bethlehem is reached. So also apparently the Protevangelium of 
James (xvii.), which limits the decree of Augustus to those who 
lived at Bethlehem! For éw\yjo@noav see on i. 15 and 57. 

7. Tov vidv adits tov mpwtdtoKov. The expression might 
certainly be used without implying that there had been subsequent 
children. But it implies the possibility of subsequent children, 
and when Luke wrote this possibility had been decided. Would 
he have used such an expression if it was then known that Mary 
had never had another child? He might have avoided all 
ambiguity by writing povoyevyjv, as he does vii. 12, viil. 42, ix. 38. 
In considering this question the imperf. éyivwoxev (Mt. i. 25) has 
not received sufficient attention. See Mayor, Zp. of Si. James, 
Pp. Xix—xxil. 

éorapydvwcev aitév. It has been inferred from her being able 
to do this thatthe birth was miraculously painless (rqv dévddwov 
Kino, Euthym. ), of which there is no hint. For the verb comp. 
opixdyn abriy éorapydvoca, “T made thick darkness a swaddling 
band for it” (Job xxxviii. 9). 

év $dtvy. ‘The traditional rendering “in a manger” is right ; 
not “a stall » either here or in xili. 15. The animals were out at 


BA THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [1I. 7% 


pasture, and the manger was not being used. Justin (77. Ixxviii.) 
and some of the apocryphal gospels say that it was in a cave, which 
is not improbable. In Origen’s time the cave was shown, and the 
manger also (Com. Ceds. i. 51). One suspects that the cave may 
be a supposed prophecy turned into history, like the vine in xix. 31. 
Is. Xxxill. 16 (obros oikjoe: ev tYyAG omAalw wérpas dxvpas) was 
supposed to point to birth in a cave, and then the cave may have 
been imagined in order to fit it, just as the colt is represented as 
“tied ¢o a vine,” in order to make Gen. xlix. 11 a prediction of 
Lk. xix. 30-33 (Justin, AZo/. i. 32). 

ok qv abtots Témos év TH KaTahUpatt. Most of the Jews then 
residing in Palestine were of Judah or Benjamin, and all towns 
and villages of Judah would be very full. No inhospitality is 
implied. It is a little doubtful whether the familiar translation 
“in the inn” is correct. In x. 34 “inn” is wavdoxeiov, and in 
xxii. 11 kardAvpa is not “inn.” It is possible that Joseph had 
relied upon the hospitality of some friend in Bethlehem, whose 
“‘ suest-chamber,” however, was already full when he and Mary 
arrived. See on xxii. 11. But xaradAvua in LXX represents five 
different Heb. words, so that it must have been elastic in meaning. 
All that it implies is a place where burdens are loosed and let 
down for a rest. In Polybius it occurs twice in the plural: of 
the general’s quarters (ii. 36. 1), and of reception rooms for envoys 
(xxxll. 19. 2). It has been suggested that the “inn” was the 
Geruth Chimham or “lodging-place of Chimham” (Jer. xli. 17), 
the [son] of Barzillai (2 Sam. xix. 37, 38), “which was dy 
Bethlehem,” and convenient for those who would “go to enter into 
Egypt.” See Stanley, Siz. & Pal. pp. 163, 529. Justin says 
that the cave was ovveyyuvs THs Kwuns, which agrees with “by 
Bethlehem.” The Mandra of Josephus (Azzé. x. 9. 5) was perhaps 
the same place as Geruth Chimham. 

8-14. The Angelic Proclamation to the Shepherds: zrwxoi 
eiayyeAtCovrat (vii. 22). It was in these pastures that David spent 
his youth and fought the lion and the bear (1 Sam. xvii. 34, 35). 
“A passage in the Mishnah (Shek. vii. 4; comp. Baba K. vii. 7, 
80 a) leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there 
were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and accordingly, that the 
shepherds who watched over them were not ordinary shepherds. 
The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on account of their 
necessary isolation from religious ordinances and their manner of 
life, which rendered strict religious observance unlikely, if not 
absolutely impossible. The same Mischnic passage also leads us 
to infer that these flocks lay out a// the year round, since they are 
spoken of as in the fields thirty days before the Passover—that is, 
in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is 
nearly greatest” (Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. pp. 186, 187). For details of 


S 


IL. 8, 9.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 55 


the life of a shepherd see D.Z. art. “Shepherds,” and Herzog, 
PRE.? art. “ Viehzucht und Hirtenleven.” 

8. dypavdodvtes. Making the dypds their aiAy, and so “ spend- 
ing their life in the open air”: a late and rare word, whereas 
dypavdos is class. This statement is by no means conclusive 
against December as the time of the year. The season may have 
been a mild one; it is not certain that all sheep were brought 
under cover at night during the winter months 


It is of the flocks in the wz/derness, far from towns or villages, that the often 
quoted saying was true, that they were taken out in March and brought home 
in November. These shepherds may have returned from the wilderness, and if 
so, the time would be between November and March. But the data for 
determining the time of year are so very insufficient, that after minute calculation 
of them all we are left in our original uncertainty. Among those who have 
made a special study of the question we have advocates for almost every month 
in the year. The earliest attempts to fix the day of which we have knowledge 
are those mentioned (and apparently condemned as profane curiosity) by 
Clement of Alexandria (Stvom. i. 21 sub fin.). In his time some took April 21, 
others April 22, and others May 20, to be the day. What was unknown in his 
time is not likely to have been discovered afterwards respecting such a detail. 
December 25th cannot be traced higher than the fourth century, and it seems to 
have been adopted first in the West. We must be content to remain in 
ignorance as to the date of the birth of Christ. See on é¢nueplasi. 5; D. of 
Chr. Ant. art. ‘‘ Christmas” ; Andrews, L. of our Lord, pp. 12-21, ed. 1892. 


guddocovtes pudaxds. The plural refers to their watching in 
turns rather than in different places. The phrase occurs Num. 
vill. 26; Xen. Anad. ii. 6. 10; but in LXX tas gvAakas dvd. is 
more common; Num. iii. 7, 8, 28, 32, 38, etc. Comp. Plat. 
Phedr. 240 E; Laws, 758 D. The fondness of Lk. for such 
combinations of cognate words is seen again ver. 9, Vil. 29, 
XVil. 24, Xxil. 15, and several times in the Acts. See on xi. 46 and 
xxiii. 46. We may take ris vuxrds after puAaxds, “ night-watches,” 
or as gen. of time, “by night.” 

9. dyyehos Kupiou énéotn adtois. The notion of coming 
suddenly is not inherent in the verb, but is often derived from the 
context: see on ver. 38.1 In N.T. the verb is almost peculiar to 
Lk., and almost always in 2nd aor. In class. Grk. also it is used 
of the appearance of heavenly beings, dreams, visions, etc. Hom. 
Z1. x. 496, xxiii. 106; Hadt. i. 34. 2, vil. 14. 1. Comp. Lk. xxiv. 4; 
Aes Xi 7, XXII. 11. 

Sofa Kupiou. The heavenly brightness which is a sign of the 
presence of God or of heavenly beings, 2 Cor. iii. 18: comp. Lk. 
1X. 31, 32. In O.T. of the Shechinah, Exod. xvi. 7, 10, xxiv. 17, 


4 In Vulg. it is very variously translated: e.g. stare juxta (here), supervenire 
(ii. 38, xxi. 34), s¢ave (iv. 39, x. 40, xxiv. 4), convenzre (xx. 1), concurrere 
(Acts vi. 12), adstare (Acts x. 17, xi. II, xii. 7), adséstere (Acts xvii. 5, 
xxiii. 11), zazmznere (Acts xxviii, 2). 


56 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IZ 9-11 


xl. 34; Lev. ix. 6, 23; Num. xii. 8, etc. This glory, according to 
the Jews, was wanting in the second temple. 


10. 6 Gyyedos. The art. is used of that which has been mentioned before 
without the art. Comp. 76 Bpégos and ry ¢drvp in ver. 16. 


M} doBetcbe. Comp. i. 13, 30, v. 10; Mt. xiv. 27, xxviii. 5, 10.1 
For i800 ydp see on i. 44. 

evayyeAiLopat suiv xapdv peyddynv. The verb is very freq. in 
Lk. and Paul, but is elsewhere rare; not in the other Gospels 
excepting Mt. xi. 5, which is a quotation. See oni. 19. 


The act. occurs Rev. x. 7, xiv. 6; the pass. Lk. vii. 22, xvi. 16; Gal. 
i. 11; Heb. iv. 2, 6; 1 Pet. i. 25, iv. 6; the mid. is freq. with various 
constructions. As here, dat. of pers. and acc. of thing, i i. 19, iv. 43; Acts 
viii. 35; acc. of thing only, viii. 1; Acts v. 42, viii. 4, 12; acc. of person, 
iii. 18; Acts viii. 25, 40; acc. of person and of thing, Acts xiii. 32. 


ijtts Eorat watt 76 hag. “Which shall have the special char- 
acter of being for all the people.” The 77s has manifest point here 
(see on ver. 4); and the art. before Aad should be preserved. A 
joy so extensive may well banish fear. Comp. 76 Aad, i. 68, 77, 
and rév Aady, vii. 16. In both these verses (9, 10) we have instances 
of Lk. recording intensity of emotion: comp. i. 42, Vill. 37, 
xxlv. 52; Acts v. 5, 11, xv. 3. Dat. after ety is freq. in Lk. 

11. eréxOn butv ojpepov cwmp. ‘lo the shepherds, as a part, 
and perhaps a specially despised part, of the people of Israel. 
Here first in N.T. is owryjp used of Christ, and here only in Lk. 
Not in Mt. er Mk., and only once in Jn. (iv. 42): twice in Acts 
(¥. 31, xiii. 23), and freq. in Tit. and 2 Pet. The 1st aor. of rixro, . 
both act. and pass., is rare: see Veitch. 

Xptotés kptos. The combination occurs nowhere else in N.T., 
and the precise meaning is uncertain. Either “ Messiah, Lord,” or 
“ Anointed Lord,” or “the Messiah, the Lord,” or ‘an anointed 
one, a Lord.” It occurs once in LXX asa manifest mistranslation. 
Lam. iv. 20, “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the 
Lord,” is rendered rvetua mpoowrov jpdv Xpictos kvpios. If this 
is not a corrupt reading, we may perhaps infer that the expres- 
sion Xpuords xvpios was familiar to the translator. It occurs 
in the Ps. Sof, where it is said of the Messiah kai ov« éorw 
dduxia év Tails Huepais adrod év péow aitdv, ott wavTes ayvol, Kal 
Bactreds airdv Xprords kvpwos (xvii. 36: comp. the title of xviii.). 
But this may easily be another mistranslation, perhaps based on 


1 «This Gospel of Luke is scarce begun, we are yet but a little way in the 
second chapter, and we have already three wold t2meres in it, and all, as here, 
at the coming of an Angel (i. 13, 30, ii. 10). . . . What was it? It was not 
the fear of an evil conscience; they were about no harm... . It is a plain 
sign our nature is fallen from her or iginal ; Ileaven and we are not in the terms 
we should be, not the best of us all” (Bishop Andrewes, Serv. V. On the 
Nativity). 


20 11-14.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 57 


that in Lam. iv. 20. Comp. <izev 6 xpios TG Kupiw po. (Ps. cx. 1), 
and érexadeodpnv Kvpiov aatépa xvpiov pov (Ecclus. li. 10). See 
Ryle and James, Ps. of Sol. pp. 141-143. The addition of év 
moet Aaveid here indicates that this owryjp is the King of Israel 
promised in the Prophets: see on ver. 4. 

12. kai Todt Spiv TS onpetov. BE omit the7é. Sign for what? 
By which to prove that what is announced is true, rather than by 
which to find the Child. It was all-important that they should be 
convinced as to the first point ; about the other there would be no 
great difficulty.—eipyoete Bpépos. “Ye shall find a babe,” “not 
the babe,” as most English Versions and Luther; Wiclif has “a 
yunge child.” This is the first mention of it; in ver. 16 the art. is 
right. In N.T., as in class. Grk., Bpédos is more often a newly- 
born child (xviii. 15; Acts vii. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 2) than 
an unborn child (Lk. i. 41, 44); in LXX it is always the former 
(1 Mac. i. 61; 2 Mac. vi. 10; 3 Mac. v. 49; 4 Mac. iv. 25), unless 
Ecclus. xix. 11 be an exception. Aquila follows the same usage 
(Ps. viii. 3, xvi. 143; Is. Ixy. 20).—é€omapyavwpévov Kal Keiuevoy év 
$d7vy. Both points are part of the sign. The first participle is 
no more an adjective than the second. No art. with darvy: the 
shepherds have not heard of it before. 

13. é&épvns.1 The fact that this is expressly stated here 
confirms the view that suddenness is not necessarily included in 
eveory (ver. 9). For ctv 16 dyyédw see on i. 56.—otpatias. Magna 
appellatio. Hic exercitus famen pacem /audat (Beng.). The 
genitive is partitive: “a@ multitude (no art.) forming part of the 
host.” Comp. 1 Kings xxil. 19; 2 Chron. xviii, 18; Ps. cil. 21; 
Josh. v. 15).—aivoivrwy. Constr. ad sensum. The whole host 
of heaven was praising God, not merely that portion of it which 
was visible to the shepherds. The verb is a favourite with Lk. 
(ver. 20, xix. 37, xxiv. 53?; Acts ii. 47, ili. 8, 9). Elsewhere 
only Rom. xv. 11 (from Ps. cxvii. 1) and Rev. xix. 5; very freq. 
in LXX. - 

14, Acga . . . edSoxias. The hymn consists of two members 
connected by a conjunction ; and the three parts of the one mem- 
ber exactly correspond with the three parts of the other member. 

Gory to God 7m the highest, 
And om earth PEACE among men of His good will. 
Acéa balances cipyvy, év ipioros balances ézi y7js, Ged balances ev 
évOpdros cidoxias. This exact correlation between the parts is 
lost in the common triple arrangement; which has the further 
awkwardness of having the second member introduced by a con- 


1 The word is thus written in the best texts here and ix. 39: comp. égvldtos, 
xxi. 345 Kepéav, xvi. 173 Kpewa)n, xxi. 34 (WH. App. pp. 150, 151). In class. 
Grk. ovpdvios is of three terminations ; but the true reading here may be ovpdvod 


(B D). 


58 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [IL 14 


junction,! while the third is not, and of making the second and 
third members tautological. “On earth peace” is very much the 
same as “Good will amongst men.” Yet Scrivener thinks that “in 
the first and second lines heaven and earth are contrasted ; the 
third refers to both those preceding, and adleges the efficient cause 
which has brought God glory and earth peace” (Int. to Crit. of 
NV.T. ii. p. 344) ; which seems to be very forced. The construction 
ev avOpwrrots evdoxias is difficult ; but one of the best of modern Greek 
scholars has said that it “may be translated ‘among men of His 
counsel for good’ or ‘of His gracious purpose.’ This rendering 
seems to be in harmony with the preceding context and with the 
teaching of Scripture in general” (T. S. Evans, Contemp. Rev., 
Dec. 1881, p. 1003). WH. take a similar view. They prefer, 
among possible meanings, “in (among and within) accepted man- 
kind,” and point out that “the Divine ‘favour’ (Ps. xxx. 5, 7, 
Ixxxv. I, lxxxix. 17, cvi. 4) or ‘good pleasure,’ declared for the 
Head of the race at the Baptism (ili. 22), was already contemplated 
by the Angels as resting on the race itself in virtue of His birth” 
(ii. App. p. 56, where the whole discussion should be studied). 
H. suggests that the first of the two clauses should end with ézi 
yns rather than @es, and that we should arrange thus: “Glory 
to God in the highest and on earth; Peace among men of His 
good pleasure.” With the construction of this first clause he com- 
Dares vil. 17 and Acts xxvi. 23: ‘Glory to God zo¢ only in heaven, 
but now also on earth.” “In this arrangement ‘ glory’ and ‘ peace’ 
stand severally at the head of the two clauses as twin fruits of the 
Incarnation, that which redounds to ‘God’ and that which enters 
into ‘men.’” This division of the clauses, previously commended 
by Olshausen, makes the stichometry as even as in the familiar 
triplet, but it has not found many supporters. It destroys the 
exact correspondence between the parts of the two clauses, the 
first clause having three or four parts, and the second only two. 
W. here leaves H. to plead alone. 

evdoxias. The word has three meanings : (1) “ design, desire,” 
as Ecclus. xi. 17; Rom. x. 1; (2) “satisfaction, contentment,” as 
Ecclus. xxxv. 14; 2 Thes. i. 113; (3) “benevolence, goodwill,” as 
Ps. evi. 4; Lk. ii. 14. Both it and eddoxeiy are specially used of 
the favour with which God regards His elect, as Ps. cxlvi. 12; 
Lk. iii. 22. The meaning here is “ favour, goodwill, good pleasure” ; 
and dv@pwio. cidoxias are “men whom the Divine favour has 
biessed.” See Lft. on Phil. i. 15. Field (Otium Norv. iii. p. 37) 
urges that, according to Greeco-biblical usage, this would be, not 
GvOpwror evdoxias, but avdpes evdoxias, and he appeals to nine ex- 
amples in LXX. But two-thirds of them are not in point, being 
singulars, and having reference to a definite adu/¢ male and not to 

1 Syr-Sin. inserts a second ‘‘and” before ‘‘ goodwill to man.” 


II. 14-16.} THE GOSPEL OF TIIE INFANCY 59 


human beings in general. These are 2 Sam. xvi. 7, xvili. 20; Ps. 
Ixxx. 18; Jer. xv. 10; 27d. Aq.; Dan. x. 11. There remain avdpes 
BovAjs pov, Ps. cxix. 24, Aq. 3; of avdpes tas diabyxys cov, Obad. 7; 
avdpes eipyvixot cov, Obad. 7. This last is again not parallel, as being 
accompanied by an adj. and not a gen. Substitute avdpes aivaruv, 
Ps. exxxvili. 19. Of these instances, all zecessarily refer to adult 
males, excepting Aq. in Ps. cxix. 24, and this more naturally does 
so, for “counsellors” are generally thought of as male. But, 
- allowing that the usual expression would have been avdpaow 
evdoxtas, this might well have been avoided here in order to em- 
phasize the fact that all, male and female, young and old, are 
included. Even in the case of an individual S. Paul writes 6 av- 
Opwros THs avopias (2 Thes. ii. 3), so that the combination is at 
anyrate possible. See on Rom. x. 1. 


The reading is a well-known problem, but the best textual critics are 
unanimous for e’doxias. The internal evidence is very evenly balanced, as 
regards both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, which are well stated 
and estimated in WH. (ii. App. pp. 55, 56). The external evidence is very 
decidedly in favour of the apparently more difficult reading evdoxlas. Roughly 
speaking, we have all the best MSS. (excepting C, which is here defective), 
with all Latin authorities, against the inferior MSS., with nearly all versions, 
except the Latin, and nearly all the Greek writers who quote the text. Syr- 
Sin. has ‘‘ and goodwill to men.” 

For evdoxlas, S* A BD, Latt. (Vet. Vulg.) Goth. Iren-Lat. Orig-Lat. 
and the Lat. Gloria in excelszs. 

For evdoxia, LPTPAAZ®, etc., Syrr. (Pesh. Sin. Harcl.) Boh. Arm. 
Aeth. Orig. Eus. Bas. Greg-Naz. Cyr-Hier. Did. Epiph. Cyr-Alex. 

‘©The agreement, not only of § with B, but of D and all the Latins with 
both, and of A with them all, supported by Origen in at least one work, and 
that in a certified text, affords a peculiarly strong presumption in favour of 
evdoxlas. If this reading is wrong, it must be Western ; and no other reading 
in the New Testament open to suspicion as Western is so comprehensively 
attested by whe earliest and best uncials” (WH. p. 54). The vehemence with 
which Scrivener argues against evdoxlas is quite out of place. 


15-20. The Verification by the Shepherds, 

15. é\ddouv mpds GAAHAous AreAPopev 8H. “They repeatedly 
said unto one another, Come then let us go over,” or “Let us at 
once go across.” The compound verb refers to the intervening 
country (Acts ix. 38, xi. 19, xvill. 27), and the 67 makes the 
exhortation urgent. Lk. is fond of deépxeo@ar, which occurs thirty 
times in his writings and less than ten elsewhere in N.T. In LXX 
it is very freq. Note és = “when.” 

76 pypa tod7>. This need not be limited to the saying of the 
Angel. It is rather the thing of which he spoke: see oni. 65. In 
class. Grk. Adyos is used in a similar manner; e.g. Hdt. i. 21. 2. 
Videamus hoc verbum quod factum est (Vulg.). 


16. 7A8av omevcavtes Kal Gvevpav. For these mixed forms of the aor, 
see oni. 59. Lk. alone in N.T. uses omevdew in its class. intrans. sense (xix, 


60 THE GOSPEL AZSCORDING TO S. LUKE [II 16-20. 


5,6; Acts xx. 16, xxii. 18). In 2 Pet. iii. 12 it is intrans. as in Is. xvi. 5. 
Lk. alone uses dveuvploxew (Acts xxi. 4), but the mid. occurs 4 Mac. iii. 14: 
2nd aor. in all three cases. The compound implies a search in order to find. 
In his Gospel Lk. never uses te without xal (xii. 45, xv. 2, xxi. ITI, etc.). 
Here both Bpégos and ¢arvy, having been mentioned before, have the article. 


17. éyvdpicav. “They made known,” not merely to Mary and 
Joseph, but to the inhabitants of Bethlehem generally. Both in 
N.T. and LXX yvwpifw is commonly trans. ; but in Phil. i. 22 and 
Job xxxiv. 25, as usualiy in class. Grk., it is intrans. Vulg. makes 
it intrans. here: cognoverunt de verbo guod dictum erat tllis de puero 
hoc. But ver. 14 makes this very improbable. 

18, mdvtes ot dxodcavtes. See oni. 66. This probably includes 
subsequent hearers, just as ver. 19 includes a time subsequent to the 
departure of the shepherds. The constr. €0atvpacav mepi is unusual. 
But in English “about,” which is common after “ perplexed,” might 
easily be transferred to such a word as “astonished.” 

19. 4 8€ Mapia mdvta cuveTnper TA PHuata taita. ‘ But Mary” 
could have no such astonishment; neither did she publish her 
impressions. The revelations to Joseph and herself precluded 
both. Note the change from momentary wonder (aor.) to sus- 
tained reticence (imperf.): also that rdévra is put before the verb 
with emphasis. Comp. Dan. vii. 28; Ecclus. xxxix. 2.—cuvBd\\ouca 
év TH Kapdia adtas. Conferens in corde suo. From whom could 
Lk. learn this? The verb is peculiar to him (xiv. 31; Acts iv. 15 ; 
xvii. 18, xviii. 27, xx. 14). See small print note on i. 66. 

20. So0fdLovtes Kal aivodvtes. The latter is the more definite 
word. The former is one of the many words which have acquired 
a deeper meaning in bibl. Grk. Just as ddéa in bibl. Grk. never 
(except 4 Mac. v. 18) has the class. meaning of “ opinion,” but 
rather “ praise” or “glory,” so doa in bibl. Grk. never means 
“form an opinion about,” but “praise” or “glorify.” It is used 
of the honour done by man to man (1 Sam. xv. 30), by man to God 
(Exod. xv. 2), and by God to man (Ps. xci. 15). It is also used of 
God glorifying Christ (Acts iii. 13), a use specially common in Jn. 
(viii. 54, x1. 4, etc.), and of Christ gloryfying God (xvii. 4). See 
on Rom. i. 21. For the combination comp. aiverdy kat dedogac- 
pevov (Dan. iii. 26, 55). For aivety see on ver. 13. 

waco. ois. For the attraction see on iii. 19. If jxoucav refers 
to the angelic announcement, then ka@ds refers to eiSov only. But 
qkovcay Kal eioov May sum up their experiences at Bethlehem, 
which were a full confirmation (xa$dés= “even as, just as”) of what 
the Angel had said. 


Schleiermacher points out that, if this narrative had been a mere poetical 
composition, we should have had the hymn of the shepherds recorded and more 
extensive hymns assigned to the Angels (5. Zwke, Eng. tr. p. 31). He regards 
the shepherds as the probable source of the narrative ; “‘for that which to them 
was most material and obvious, the nocturnal vision in the fields, is the only 


II. 20, 21.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 61 


circumstance treated in detail” (p. 33). But any narrator would give the vision, 
and could hardly give it more briefly without material loss. The brevity of it, 
especially when contrasted with the apocryphal gospels, is strong guarantee for 
its truth. How tempting to describe the search for the Babe and the conversa- 
tion between the parents and the shepherds! Of the myth-hypothesis Weiss 
rightly says that ‘‘it labours in vain to explain the part played here by the 
shepherds by means of the pastoral tales of the ancients, and is driven to drag 
in, awkwardly enough, the legends of Cyrus and Romulus” (Leben Jeszt, i. 2. 
4, note, Eng. tr. p. 255). As for the old rationalism, which explained the 
angelic vision by 2gvzs fatuzs or other phosphoric phenomena, which travellers 
have said to be common in those parts; ‘‘ the more frequent such phenomena, 
the more familiar must shepherds above all men, accustomed te pass their nights 
the whole summer long in the open air, have been with them, and the less likely 
to consider them as a sign from heaven pointing at a particular event” 
(Schleierm. p. 36). 


21-40. The Circumcision and the Presentation in the Temple. 


This forms the third and last section in the second group of 
narratives (i. 57-li. 40) in the Gospel of the Infancy (i. 5-ii. 52). 
It corresponds to the Visitation (i. 39-56) in the first group. Its 
very marked conclusion has close resemblance to i. 80 and ii. 52. 
See introductory note to vv. 1-20 (p. 46). The absence of parallel 
passages in the other Gospels shows that at first this portion of the 
Gospel narrative was less well known. An oral tradition respect- 
ing the childhood of the Christ (when hardly anyone suspected that 
He was the Christ) would be much less likely to arise or become 
prevalent than an oral tradition respecting the ministry and cruci- 
fixion. We can once more trace a threefold division, viz. a longer 
narrative between two very short ones: the Circumcision (21), the 
Presentation in the Temple (22-38), and the Return to Home Life 
at Nazareth (39, 40). 

21. The Circumcision. The verse contains an unusual number 
of marks of Lk.’s style. 1. Kai dre (vv. 22, 42, vi. 13, xxii. 14, 
xxili. 33); 2. gAnOevv (twenty-two times in Lk. and Acts, and 
thrice elsewhere in N.T.); see oni. 57; 3. row c¢. zmjin. to express 
aim or purpose (i. 74, 77, 79, ii. 24, iv. 10, v. 7, Vili. 5, etc.); 
see on i. 74; 4. kai introducing the apodosis (v. 1, 12, 17, vii. 12, 
ix. 51, etc.); 5. cvAAapBaverr (eleven times in Lk. and Acts, and 
five times elsewhere). See on v. I. 

21. toi mepiteuetv atdtdv. There being no art. with jpépac 
(contrast ver. 22), we cannot, as in ver. 6 and i. 57, make the gen. 
depend on at.7épar or 6 ypovos. The éx7a does not take the 
place of the art. As Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful 
flesh” (Rom. vill. 3), and “it behoved Him in all things to be 
made like unto His brethren” (Heb. ii. 17), He underwent cir- 
cumcision. He was “born under the law” (Gal. iv. 4), and ful- 
filled the law as a loyal son of Abraham. Had He not done so, 
adk av GAws TapedexOy SiddoKwv, GAX’ droméugdOn dv ws GAASPvA0s 


62 TIlE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 21, 22. 


(Euthym.) His circumcision was a first step in His obedience to 
the will of God, and a first shedding of the redeeming blood. It 
was one of those things which became Him, in order “to fulfil all 
righteousness” (Mt. iii. 15). The contrast with the circumcision 
of the Baptist is marked. Here there is no family gathering of 
cejoicing neighbours and kinsfolk. Joseph and Mary are strangers 
in a village far from home. 


The reading 7d raldvov (D E G H) for avrés (N AB R & and versions) prob- 
ably arose from this being the beginning of a lection, ‘‘ Him” being changed 
to ‘‘the child” (AV.) for greater clearness. The same kind of thing has 
been done at the beginning of many of the Gospels in the Book of Common 
Prayer, ‘‘ Jesus” being substituted for ‘‘ He” or ‘‘Ilim”: e.g. the Gospels 
for the 6th, gth, 11th, 12th, 16th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd Sundays after 
Trinity. 

kat exdynOy. The xai is almost our “then” and the German 
da: but it may be left untranslated. It introduces the apodosis, 
as often in Grk., and esp. in Lk. This is simpler than to explain 
it as a mixture of two constructions, “ When eight days were ful- 
filled . . . He was called” and “Eight days were fulfilled... 
and He was called” (Win. hii. 3. f, p. 546, lxv. 3. c, p. 756) 
Comp. Acts i. 10. “ He was a/so called” is not likely to be right. 
The Vulgate and Luther are right. £7 postguam consummati sunt 
dies octo ut circumcideretur vocatum est nomen ejus Jesus. Und da 
achi Tage um waren, dass das Kind beschnitten wiirde, da ward sein 
Name genannt Jesus. This passage, with that about John the Baptist 
(i. 59), is the chief biblical evidence that naming was connected 
with circumcision: comp. Gen. xvii. 5, ro. Among the Romans 
the naming of girls took place on the eighth day: of boys on the 
ninth. The purification accompanied it ; and hence the name des 
lustricus. ‘Tertullian uses zominalia of the naming festival (Zdo/. 
xvi. 1). Among the Greeks the naming festival was on the tenth 
day ; Sexaryny éoriav or Ove. 


ovd\AnppOAvat This and corresponding forms, such as A7juPouat, mpoocw- 
mo\nuwia, and the like, are abundantly attested in good MSS. both of LXX 
and of N.T. See on i.31. xockla=“ womb” is specially freq. in Lk. 


22-38. The Purification and the Presentation in the Temple. 
Here also we have a triplet. The Ceremony (22-24); Symeon 
and the Nunc Dimittis (25-35); and Anna the Prophetess (36-38). 
Symeon and Anna, like Zacharias and Elisabeth, with those spoken 
of in ver. 38, are evidence that Judaism was still a living religion 
to those who made the most of their opportunities. 


22. ai fpépar tod x. Lev. xii. 6. Lk. is fond of these peri- 
phrases, which are mostly Hebraistic. Comp. 7 jmépa rév oa Ba- 


I. 22.) TIE GOSPEL OF TIE INFANCY 63 


tov (iv. 16), or Tod caBBarov (xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5), } 7uépa Taw 
afvpwv (xxii 7), and the like. 

rod KaSapiopod attay. “Of ‘heir purification.” The Jewish 
law (Lev. xii.) did not include the child in the purification. This 
fact, and the feeling that least of all could Jesus need purifying, 
produced the corrupt reading aiz7js, followed in AV. 


No uncial and perhaps only one cursive (76) supports the reading aurjs, 
which spread from the Complutensian Polyglott Bible (1514) to a number of 
editions. It is a remarkable instance of a reading which had almost no 
authority becoming widely adopted. It now has the support of Syr-Sin. 
The Complutensian insertion of dinp9pw6n alter 4 YAGooa avrov in i. 64 was 
less successful, although that has the support of two cursives (140, 251). 
D here has the strange reading avro8, which looks like a slip rather than a 
correction. No one would alter av7&v to avrov. The Vulgate also has 
purgationis ejus, but some Lat. MSS. have corum. The aurjs might come 
from LXX of Lev. xii. 6, drav dvamAnpwhGow al juépar kabdpoews auras. 
Note that Lk. uses xa@apioués and not xd@apots, which is a medical term for 
menstruation, and which Gentile readers might misunderstand, 


The meaning of airéy isnot clear. Edersheim and Van Hengel 
interpret it of the Jews; Godet, Meyer, and Weiss of Mary and 
Joseph. ‘The latter is justified by the context: “When the days 
of ¢heir purification were fulfilled . . . they brought Him.” Con- 
tact with an unclean person involved uncleanness. Purification 
after childbirth seems to have been closely connected with purifica- 
tion after menstruation; the rites were similar. Herzog, PRZ.? 
art. Reinigungen. After the birth of a son the mother was unclean 
for seven days, then remained at home for thirty-three days, and on 
the fortieth day after the birth made her offerings. 

Kata Tov vopov Mwucéws. These words must be taken with what 
precedes, for the law did not require them to bring Him to Jeru- 
salem (Lev. xii. 1-8). We have already had several places in 
ch. i. (vv. 8, 25, 27) in which there are amphibolous words or 
phrases: comp. Vill. 39, ix. 17, 18, 57, x. 18, xi. 39, Xli. I, xvii. 22, 
XVIii. 31, XIX. 37, Xxl. 36, etc. 


The trisyllabic form Mwiicojs is to be preferred to Mwofs. The name is 
said to be derived from two Egyptian words, mo = ‘‘ water,” and ugaz = ‘to 
be preserved.” Hence the LXX, a version made in Egypt, and the best 
MSS. of the N.T., which in the main represent the text of the N.T. that was 
current in Egypt, keep nearest to the Egyptian form of the name by preserving 
the v. Josephus also has Mwvo7jjs. But Mwo7js is closer to the Hebrew form 
of the name, and is the form most commonly used by Greek and Latin writers. 
Win. v. 8, pe 472” 


évjyayov. One of Lk.’s favourite words (iv. 5, viii. 22, and 
often in Acts). It is here used of bringing Him x éo the capital, 
like dvaBavévrwv in ver. 43. In the literal sense they went down; 
for Bethlehem stands higher than Jerusalem. This journey is the 
first visit of the Christ to His own city. 


64 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 22, 23, 


*lepood\upa. In both his writings Lk. much more often uses 
the Jewish form ‘Iepovoadyjp (vv. 25, 38, 41, 43, 45, etc.), which 
Mt. uses only once (xxiii. 37), and Mk. perhaps not at all (? xi. 1). 
Jn. uses the Greek form in his Gospel, and the Jewish form in the 
Apocalypse. The Jewish form is used wherever the name is not 
a geographical term, but has a specially religious signification (Gal. 
iv. 25; Heb. xii. 22). The Greek form is neut. plur. In Mt. ii. 3 
it may be fem.; but perhaps zaca % woXus was in the writer’s mind. 
Neither form should have the aspirate, which a “ false association 
with iepds” has produced (WH. ii. 313; App. p. 160). This visit 
to Terusalem probably preceded the arrival of the Magi, after which 
Joseph and Mary would hardly have ventured to bring Him to the 
city. If this is correct, we must abandon the traditional view that 
the Epiphany took place on the thirteenth day after the Nativity. 
There is no improbability in Joseph’s going back to Bethlehem 
for a while before returning to Nazareth. See Andrews, Lie of our 
Lord, p. 92, ed. 1892; Swete, Zhe Afostles Creed, p. 50, ed. 1894. 


In any case the independence of Mt. and Lk. is manifest, for we do not 
know how to harmonize the accounts. Lk. seems to imply that “ the law of 
Moses” was kept in all particulars; and if so, the purification did not take 
place before the fortieth day. Mt. implies that the flight into Egypt took 
place immediately after the visit of the Magi (ii. 14). As Bethlehem is so 
close to Jerusalem, Herod would not wait long for the return of the Magi 
before taking action. We adopt, therefore, as a tentative order the Presenta- 
tion on the fortieth day, Return to Bethlehem, Visit of the Magi, Flight into 
Egypt, without any return to Nazareth. 


Tapacticat Tt Kupiw. The Heb. verb in Ex. xiii. 12 means 
“cause to pass over.” It is elsewhere used of parents causing their 
children to pass through the fire in offering them to Moloch, but is 
not then translated by zapiornps (Deut. xviii. 10; 2 Kings xvi. 3, 
XVli. 17, xxiii. 10, etc.). For rapaorjoa of offering to God comp. 
Rom. xii. 1. This rapacrjcat 7 xvpiw is quite distinct from the 
purification, which concerned the mother, whereas the presentation 
concerned the son. It is evident that the presentation is the main 
fact here. Not, “she came to offer a sacrifice,” but “they brought 
Him up to present Him to the Lord,” is the principal statement. 
The latter rite points back to the primitive priesthood of all first- 
born sons. Their functions had been transferred to the tribe of 
Levi (Num. ili. 12); but every male firstborn had to be redeemed 
from service in the sanctuary by a payment of five shekels (Num. 
Xviii. 15, 16), as an acknowledgment that the rights of Jehovah 
had not lapsed. This sum would be about twelve shillings accord- 
ing to the present worth of that amount of silver, but in purchasing 
power would be nearly double that. 

23. The quotation (which i is not a parenthesis) is a combination of Ex. 


xiii. 2 with Ex. xiii. 12, and is not exact with either: KhyOyoerar a ay. perhaps 
comes from Ex. xii. 16; comp. Lk. i. 35. For wav apoev see Gen. vii. 23; 


II. 23, 24.| THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 65 


Ex. i. 22. The Stavotyov pytpav seems to be fatal to patristic speculations 
respecting Mary’s having given birth to the Christ c/awso utero, and therefore 
painlessly : see on ver. 7. 

Excepting Mk. vii. 34, dtavolyw is peculiar to Lk. (xxiv. 31, 45; Acts vii. 
56, xvi. 14, xvii. 3); freq. in LXX (Gen. iii. 5, 7; Exod. xiii. 15; Num. iii. 
12, etc.). 


24. tobi Sodvar Ouciav. See on i. 74, and to the reff. there given 
addive7, Will. 5, 1X. 51,.xil. 42, xxi. 22, xxii. 6, 31, XXIV. 15, 25, 29, 
45. This is Mary’s offering for her own purification: it has nothing 
to do with the ransom of the firstborn. The record of the offerings 
is considerable guarantee for the truth of the history. A legend 
would very probably have emphasized the miraculous birth by 
saying that the virgin mother was divinely instructed of to bring 
the customary offerings, which in her case would not be required. 

Ledyos tpuyovwr. ‘The offering of thepoor. It has been argued 
that this is evidence that the Magi had not yet come. But their 
gifts, even if they had already offered them, would not have raised 
Mary’s condition from poverty to riches. Only well-to-do people 
offered a lamb and a pigeon. Neither here nor elsewhere in N.T. 
have we any evidence that our Lord or His parents were among 
the abjectly poor. 


‘©The pigeon and turtle-dove were the only birds enjoined to be offered in 
sacrifice by the law of Moses. In almost every case they were permitted as a 
substitute for those who were too poor to provide a kid ora lamb. . . . But 
while the turtle-dove is a migrant, and can only be obtained from spring to 
autumn, the wild pigeons remain throughout the year; and not only so—they 
have young at all times. Consequently, at any time of the year when the turtle- 
dove was unattainable, young pigeons might be procured. There is also a force 
in the adjective ‘ young’; for while the old turtle-dove could be trapped, it was 
hopeless to secure the old pigeon” (Tristram, Wat. Hzst. of the B. pp. 211, 213). 


25-35. The Benediction of Symeon. He and Anna are repre- 
sentatives of the holiness which, in a time of great spiritual deadness, 
still survived among the men and women of Israel. They are 
instances of that ‘spontaneous priesthood” which sometimes 
springs up, and often among the lower orders, when the regular 
cziyy Have become corrupt and secularized. To identify Symeon 
with any other Symeon is precarious, the name being exceedingly 
common. He is introduced rather as an unknown person (av@pwzros 
#v). It is sometimes said that Symeon, son of Hillel and father of 
Gamaliel, would hardly have been old enough; he was president 
of the Sanhedrin a.D. 13. But ver. 29 does not necessarily imply 
that Symeon is very old. What we know of the Sanhedrin at this 
period, however, does not lead us to expect to find saints among 
its presidents. In the Gospel of Nicodemus he is called sacerdos 
magnus, and it is his two sons who are raised from the dead by 
oe and reveal what they have seen in Hades (Pars altera, 

bods) 
5 


66 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 25, 26. 


25. év “lepoucadnp. It is remarkable that with one excep- 
tion (Rom. xv. 26) this expression is used in N.T. by no one 
but Lk., who has it very often (ver. 43, ix. 31; Acts 1. 8, ii. 5, 
VIET ix. £3, 21,,X: 30, xill. 27, Xvi 4, 3x0 11). In LXX it is 
common. 

ed\aBys. The word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts ii. 5, 
Vili. 2, xxii. 12): lit. “taking hold well,” and so “cautious.” Lat. 
timoratus (Vulg.), ¢imens (e), metuens (d), timens deum (tr). 
Plutarch uses edAd@ea in the sense of “ carefulness about religious 
duties, piety”; but edAaBys is not thus used in class. Grk. We 
find the combination of these same two adjectives, Sixaros and 
evans, twice in Plato’s sketch of the ideal statesman. He ought 
to have both moderation and courage ; and of moderation the two 
chief elements are justice and circumspection. If he is merely 
courageous, he will be wanting in 76 dikasov kat evrAaBes (Polit. 
311 B). See also Philo, Quis rer. div. her. vi., of the <etAaBaa of 
Abraham. ‘The meaning of the combination here is that Symeon 
was conscientious, especially in matters of religion. 

mpoodexopevos (See ON XXiil. 51) mapdkAnow. 1. “ Appeal for 
help”; 2. “encouragement”; 3. “consolation.” The last is the 
meaning here. Those who “sit in darkness and the shadow of 
death” (i. 79) need consolation; and the salvation which the 
Messiah was to bring was specially called such by the Jews. 
Comp. “Comfort ye, comfort ye, My people” (Is. xl. 1, xlix. 13, 
li. 3, xi. 2, Ixvi. 13). There was a belief that a time of great 
troubles (dolores Messiz) would precede the coming of the Christ. 
Hence the Messiah Himself was spoken of as “the Consoler,” or 
“the Consolation.” Comp. Joseph of Arimathzea, “ who was wait- 
ing for the kingdom of God” (xxiii. 51; Mk. xv. 43); and with 
this “ waiting” or “looking” of Symeon and Joseph comp. Jacob’s 
death-song, Gen. xlix. 18. 

mvedpa iv Gyvov. This is the order of the words in the best 
authorities ; and the separation of dyvov from zvetpua by Hv accentu- 
ates the difference between this expression and that in the next 
verse. Here the meaning is, “an influence which was holy was 
upon him”; i. 15, 35, 41, 67 are not parallel. See oni. 15. The 
accusative, éx’ airéy, indicates the coming, rather than the resting, 
of the holy influence; the prophetic zpudse. 

26. Kexpypatiopévov. The act. = 1. “transact business” 
(xpjua); 2. “give a divine response” to one who consults an 
oracle; 3. “give a divine admonition, teach from heaven” (Jer. 
XXV. 30, xxxl. 2; Job xl. 8). The pass. is used both of the 
admonition divinely given, as here, and of the person divinely 
admonished (Mt. ii. 12, 22; Acts x. 22; Heb. viii. 5, xi. 7). It is 
gratuitous to conjecture that it was in a dream that the Holy Spirit 
made this known to Symeon. 


II. 26-28.] 1HE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 67 


py iSetv ©. wpiv % Gv iS. This is the only example in N.T. of mply 
with the subj. (Win. xli. 3. b, p. 371); and, if the reading is correct, the only 
instance of mplv dv: but perhaps either # or dv should be omitted. The repe- 
tition ef ‘‘see” is doubtless intentional. In many languages ‘‘see” is used 
of any kind of experience (Acts ii. 27, 31, xiii. 35-37, etc.). 


tov Xpiotov Kupiov. “The Anointed of the Lord” ; Him whom 
God has sent as the Messiah. Comp. rov Xp. tod @eov (ix. 20), 
and also 1 Sam. xxiv. 7. 

27. év76 mvedpar. Not “ina state of ecstasy” (Rev. i. ro), 
but “under the influence of the Spirit,” who had told him of the 
blessing in store for him. By 1d tepev is probably meant the Court 
of the Women.—ev 14 eicayayetv. “After they had brought in”: 
see on iii. 21. The verb is a favourite with Lk. (xiv. 21, xxii. 54, 
and six times in Acts): elsewhere only Jn. xviii. 16; Heb. i. 6. 

rods yovets. We cannot infer from this that either here or 
ver. 41 Luke is using an authority that was ignorant of the super- 
natural birth of Jesus. It is more reasonable to suppose that the 
whole of this “Gospel of the Infancy” comes from one source, 
viz. the house of Mary, and that in these passages the narrator 
employs the usual expression. Joseph (iv. 22) and Mary were 
commonly called His parents: comp. ver. 33.—It is possible 
to take mept atrod after véuov or after eifucpévov ; but more prob- 
ably it belongs to rod rorjoat, For xara 75 eiPiopévov see on i. 8. 

28. kal aitds. First the parents, and then Ze holds the child in 
his arms ; the cai being either “also” (he as well as they), or simply 
introducing the apodosis after év 7G eicayayetv.. Each side acts its 
proper part. The parents bring Him in accordance with the Divine 
Law, and Symeon welcomes Him in accordance with the Divine 
impulse. Symeon is sometimes called @coddxos. See on viii. 13. 


Latin renderings of dyxd\as vary: w/zas(Vulg.), manus (cef), amplexum 
(a), a/as (d). The last is a late use of a/a. 


29-32. The Nunc Dimittis. In its suppressed rapture and 
vivid intensity this canticle equals the most beautiful of the 
Psalms. Since the fifth century it has been used in the evening 
services of the Church (Afos¢. Cons?. vii. 481), and has often been 
the hymn of dying saints. It is the sweetest and most solemn of 
all the canticles. 

Symeon represents himself as a servant or watchman released 
from duty, because that for which he was commanded to watch has 
appeared. Corfip. the opening of the Agamemnon of Aischylus, 


1 Most of the canticles from O.T. and N.T. were said at Lauds both in East 
and West. But the J/agnzjicat was transferred in the West to Vespers, and the 
Nunc Dimitiis seems to have been always used in the evening, in the East at 
Vespers, in the West at Compline. Kraus, Real.-Enc. d. Chr. Alt. ii. p. 5063 
Bingham, Ovzg. vi. 47. 


68 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ II. 29-31. 


where the sentinel rejoices at his release from the long watch for 
the fire-signal respecting the capture of Troy. 

29. viv. “Vow that I have at last seen the long-looked for 
Messiah”: the viv stands first with emphasis. 

dtroNvets tT. SodAGv o., Séomota. All three words show that the 
figure is that of the manumission of a slave, or of his release from 
a long task. Death is the instrument of release. “AzoAvw is used 
of the deaths of Abraham (Gen. xv. 2), of Aaron (Num. xx. 29), of 
Tobit (Tob. iii. 6), of a martyr (2 Mac. vii. 9): comp. Soph. Amz. 
1268, and many examples in Wetst. Acozdrys is the “master of a 
slave,” and the Greeks sometimes refused the title to any but the 
gods in reference to themselves (Eur. “/zpfo/. 88). In Scripture it 
is not often used of God: Acts iv. 24; Rev. vi. 10; perhaps 
Jude 4, which, however, like 2 Pet. ii. 1, may refer to Christ. 
Comp. Job v. 8; Wisd. vi. 7, viii. 3; Ecclus. xxxvi. 1; 3 Mac. 
ii. 2; Philo, Quis rer. div. her. vi.; and see Trench, Sy. xxviii. 
In using the word Symeon acknowledges God’s absolute right to 
dispose of him, either in retaining or dispensing with his service. 

kata Td ppd cov. The Divine command communicated to 
him (ver. 26). Note the exact correspondence between his hymn 
and the previous promise: dzroAvers = idciy Odvatov, <idov = idy, TO 
cwTypidv gov = Tov Xpiotov Kupiov.—eév eipyyn. With emphasis, 
answering to the emphatic viv: the beginning and the end of the 
verse correspond. It is the peace of completeness, of work 
finished and hopes fulfilled. Comp. “Thou shalt go to thy fathers 
in peace” (Gen. xv. 15). 

80. 6m. Introduces the cause of the perfect peace.—ei8op ot 
é0adpot pou. Hebraistic fulness of expression: comp. Job xix. 27, 
xlii. 5. His hands also had handled (1 Jn. i. 1); but he mentions 
sight rather than handling, because sight was specially promised 
(ver. 26). This verse probably suggested the worthless tradition 
that Symeon was blind, and received his sight as the Messiah 
approached him. 

Ts owrmpiov. ‘The Messianic salvation,” and scarcely to be 
distinguished from tiv cwrypiav. Comp. iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28; 
Ps. xcviil. 3; Is. xl. 5; Clem. Rom. Cor. xxxvi. 1. In EX@@itas 
freq., sometimes in the sense of “safety,” sometimes of “ peace- 
offering.” Win. xxxiv. 2, p. 294. That Symeon says so little about 
the Child, and nothing about the wonders which attended His 
birth (of which he had probably not heard), is a mark of genuine- 
ness. Fiction would have made him dwell on these things. 

31, 32. The second strophe of the canticle. Having stated 
what the appearance of the Messiah has been to himself, Symeon 
now states what the Messiah will be to the world. 

81. jTotpacas. When used of God, the verb almost = “ ordain.” 
Comp. Mt. xx. 23, xxv. 34; Mk. x. 40; 1 Cor. ii. 9; Heb. xi. 16, 


IL 31, 32.) THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 69 


where, as here, the word is used of ordaining blessings. It is used. 
only once of punishment (Mt. xxv. 41). 

Kata Tpdcwnov tévtwv Tov Kav. This includes both Jews and 
Gentiles, as the next verse shows, and is in harmony with the 
universal character of this Gospel: comp. Is. xix. 24, 25, xlii. 6, 
xlix. (Ga se KD and especially li. TO, droxadiyer Kvpuos Tov Bpaxiova 
avrov TOV ; Eyov évesrruov TAaVTWV TOV ebvarv, kal Oyovrat TavTa Ta akpa 
THS YRS THV TwTypiav THY Tapa Tod Ocod jydv. Both in LXX and 
N.T. xara azpdcwroy is common; it occurs several times in 
Polybius. 

82. The cwrypiov is analysed into light and glory, and “ the 
peoples” into heathen and Jews,—that “ profound dualism which 
dominates the biblical history of humanity from Genesis to Revela- 
tion” (Godet). The passage is a combination of Ps. xcviii. 2, 
évavtiov Tav €Ovav arexddupe THY Oikacoovvyv aitod, with Is. xlix. 6, 
dddwxa oe cis Pads eOvav, and Pas and ddfay are in apposition with 
70 cwrypiov. But some take both as depending on jjroiyacas, and 
others take ddgay after eis co-ordinately with dzroxdAvyuw. This last 
is Luther’s: eim Licht zu erleuchten die Heiden und zum Preis deines 
Volkes ; but it is very improbable. 

dmokdhupy ebvav. Either 1. “revelation fo belong to the Gen- 
tiles” ; or 2. “‘zzstruction of the Gentiles” ; or 3. “unveiling of the 
Gentiles,” ze. for removing the gross darkness which covers them 
(Is. xxv. 7, lx. 2); or 4. (taking é6véy after das) “a light of the 
Gentiles unto revelation” (Is. xl. 5). The first is best, “a light 
with a view to revelation which shall belong to the Gentiles,” making 
eOvav a poss. gen. Does dmoxaAviis ever mean “instruction”?! 
And to represent the heathen as revealed by the light seems to be 
an inversion: revealed 7o whom? 


Elsewhere in N.T. the gen. after daoxd)vyis is either the person who reveals 
(2 Cor. xii. 1; Rev. i. 1), or the thing revealed (Rom. ii. 5; 1 Pet. iv. 13); but 
the poss. gen. is quite possible. The word is eminently Pauline (Crem. Lex. 
p- 343). _ It may be doubted whether the glory of Israel (Rom. ix. 4) is men- 
tioned after the enlightening of the Gentiles in order to indicate that Israel 
obtained its full glory after and through the enlightenment of the Gentiles ; for 
the heathen accepted the salvation which the Jews refused, and from the heathen 
it came back to Israel (Bede, Beng.). 

The strain of confidence and joy which pervades the canticle is strong 
evidence of the historical character of the narrative. The condition of the 
Jewish nation at the close of the first century or beginning of the second is cer- 
tainly not reflected in it: cest le pur accent primztif (Godet). And Schleier- 
macher remarks that “‘it is a circumstance too natural for a poetical fiction ” 
that Symeon takes no notice of the parents until they show surprise, but is lost 
in an enthusiastic address to God. See small print on i. 56. 


83-35. Symeon’s Address to the Virgin. “The foreboding of 
suffering to Mary, so indefinitely expressed, bears no mark of fost 


1 Grotius admits without commending this rendering, and quotes Ps. cxix. 18, 
dmroxd\upov rods 6PParpovs Lov. 


70 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 88-35 


actum invention. But the inspired idea of Messiah in the pious 
old man obviously connected the sufferings which He was to 
endure in His strife against the corrupt people with those which 
were foretold of Him in Is. liii.” (Neander, Leben Jesus Christi, 
§ 18, Eng. tr. p. 27). The change from the unmixed joy and glory 
of the angelic announcements and of the evangelic hymns is very 
marked. Here for the first time in the narrative we have an 
intimation of future suffering. 


33. jv. When the sing. verb was written, only the first of the persons 
mentioned was in the writer’s mind: such irregularities are common (Mt. xvii. 
3, Xxil. 40). —Oavpalovtes ent. Excepting Mk. xii. 17, this construction is 
peculiar in N. T. to Wika (ive 225d xe0 ASh ax. 26; Acts iii. 12). It is quite 
class. and freq. in LXX (Judith x. 7, 19, 23, xi. 203 Job xli. 1; Eccles. v. 73 
Is. lii. 15). The objection of Strauss, that this wonder of the parents is 
inconsistent with the angelic annunciation, is pointless. Symeon’s declaration 
about the Gentiles goes far beyond the Angel’s promise, and it was marvellous 
that Symeon should know anything about the Child’s nature and destiny. 


84, xetror. “Is appointed,” Phil. i. 16; 1 Thes. iii. 3; Josh. 
iv. 6; not “is lying” here in thine arms. 

eis mrdow. In accordance with Is. viii. 14, where the same 
double destiny is expressed. The coming of the Messiah neces- 
sarily involves a crisis, a separation, or judgment («p/o.s). Some 
welcome the Light; others “love the darkness rather than the 
Light, because their works are evil” (Jn. iii. 19), and are by their 
own conduct condemned. Judas despairs, Peter repents; one 
robber blasphemes, the other confesses (2 Cor. ii. 16). Hence the 
mrT@ots Of many is an inevitable zesw/t of the manifestation of the 
Christ. Yet the purpose is not rraovs, but dvdoracis and owrnpia 
(Rom. xi. 11, 12). Elsewhere in N.T. dvdotacis means the 
resurrection of the dead; in bibl. Grk. it is never transitive. 
Some understand the metaphor as that of a stone lying (keira), 
against which some stumble and fall (Mt. xxi. 44; Acts iv. 11; 
Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet. ii. 6), while others use it as a means to rise. 
But the latter half of the figure is less appropriate. 

onpetov. A manifest token, a phenomenon impossible to 
ignore, by means of which something else is known. A person 
may be a onpetov, as Christ is said to be here, and Jonah in 
xi. 30.—dvtiNeyopevov. “Which zs spoken against.” This is the 
mrToo.s, that men recognize, and yet reject and oppose, the 
onpeiov ; an Opposition which reached a climax in the crucifixion 
(Heb. xii. 3). For the passive comp. Acts xxviii. 22. 

85. From kati ood to popdaia is not a parenthesis ; there is 
nothing in the construction to indicate that it is one, and a state- 
ment of such moment to the person addressed would hardly be 
introduced parenthetically. It is the inevitable result of the 
dytiAoyia: the Mother’s heart is pierced by the rejection and 


IL. 35, 36.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 71 


crucifixion of her Son.—adrjjs.1 In opposition to otros.—thy 
Wuxyv. The seat of the affections and human emotions. —poppaia. 
(1) A long Thracian pike ; (2) a large sword, greater than pdxarpa 
(i 36, 38, 49, 52) or éipos. Such a weapon better signifies 
extreme anguish than doubi, the interpretation which Origen, Bleek, 
and Reuss prefer, as if she would be tempted to join in the 
dy7Xéyew. In that case we should expect 70 avedua for 7. puxyy. 
The word is frequent in LXX and Rev. (i. 16, ii. 12, 16, vi. 8, 
xix. 15, 21). 

dmws dv. This depends upon the whole statement from *I8ov 
to poudaia, not on the last clause only; on ketra:, not on duedev- 
cerat. It was the Divine purpose that the manifestation of the 
Messiah should cause the crisis just described ; men must decide 
either to join or to oppose Him. The ay indicates that in every 
case the appearance of the Christ produces this result: thoughts, 
hitherto secret, become known through acceptance or rejection of 
the Christ. 


Acts iii. 19, 20 should be compared. There, as here, we have els 
followed by dzws dv. In N.T. dzws dy is rare ; elsewhere only in quotations 
from LXX (Acts xv. 17 from Amos ix. 12; Rom. iii. 4 from Ps. li. 6). 


ék m. kapdtwv. “Forth from many hearts,” where they have 
been concealed; or “Forth from the hearts of many.” For 
Biadoyropol see on v. 22. 

86-88. Anna the Prophetess. That the Evangelist ebtained 
this narrative “directly or indirectly from the lips of this Anna 
who is so accurately described,” is less probable than that the 
source for all this chapter is one and the same, viz. some member 
of the Holy Family, and probably Mary herself. 

86. jv. Either “was sresent,” as in Mk. xv. 40, in which case 
jv in the sense of “was” has to be understood with what follows ; 
or simply “there was,” which is better. Thus all runs in logical 
order. First the existence of Anna is stated, then her life and 
character, and finally her presence on this occasion. Symeon 
comes to the temple under the influence of the Spirit; Anna 
(Hannah) dwells there continually. The sight of the Messiah 
makes him at once long for death; it seems to give her renewed 
vigour of life. Is this subtle distinction of character the creation 
of a writer of fiction? We find fiction at work in the tradition 
that Mary had been brought up in the temple under the tutelage 
of Anna. There is nothing here to indicate that Anna had ever 
seen Mary previously. 


1 It is not easy to decide whether the dé after cod is genuine or not. Om. 
BL, Vulg. Boh. Aeth. Arm. Ins. § A D, Syrr., Orig. If it be admitted, 
comp. i. 76; and render cal. . . dé. . . in the same way in both passages: 
“Yea and.” For duedevoerat see on ver. 15. 


72 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II. 86, 87. 


Neither in ver. 36 (kal yy) nor in ver. 37 (kal avr7) does cai = *‘also” in 
ref. to ver. 25. The meaning is not ‘‘ There was Symeon, the holy and aged 
man ; a/so Anna, the holy and aged woman.” Throughout the section kal 
= Ried ” 


mpopitis. She was known as such before this occasion. Like 
Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and the daughters of Philip, Anna was 
a woman divinely inspired to make known God’s will to others. 
That her genealogy is given because prophetesses are rare, is 
doubtful. But Lk.’s accuracy appears in such details, which a 
forger would have avoided for fear of mistakes. Although the ten 
tribes were lost, some families possessed private genealogies. For 
the word mpopytis comp. Rey. il. 20; Exod. xv. 20; Judg. iv. 4; 
2 Chron, xxxiv. 2; Is. viii. 3. 


For the omission of the art. after @vydrnp see on i. 5.—Pavouyr = ** Face 
of God,” Peniel or Penuel (Gen. xxxii. 31, 32); in LXX eldos Qcof.—Aonp, 
2 Chron. xxx. II. 


aitn mpoBeByxuta, x.t.A. “She was advanced in many days, 
having lived with a husband seven years from her Virginity, and 
herself a widow even for eighty-four | years.” From avrn zpoe«B. to 
Teoodpwv is a parenthesis in which jv is to be understood: fycaca 
explains zpoSeGBnxvia, and airy balances pera dvdpds. She was of 
great age, decause she had lived! seven years as a wife and eighty- 
four years by herself (Rom. vil. 25) as a widow. The éws draws 
attention to the great length of her widowhood; “up to as much 

” (Mt. xviii. 21, 22). That she should be considerably over a 
hundred years old is not incredible. But the eighty-four may be 
intended to include the seven years and the time before her 
marriage. In any case the clumsy arrangement of taking al! three 
verses (36-38) as one sentence, and making avry the nom. to 
dv@wpoXoyetro, should be avoided. ‘That she had never, in spite of 
her early widowhood, married again, was held to be very honourable 
to her: comp. 1 Tim. v. 3, 5. onogamia apud ethnicos in summo 
honore est (Tertul. de. Exh. Cast. xiii.: comp. de Monog. xvi.; ad 
Uxor. i. 7). See quotations in Wetst. on 1 Tim. iii. 2, and 
Whiston’s note on Jos. Azz. xviil. 6. 6. 

37. ovK d&dplotato Tod tepod. See on viii. 13. This is to be 
understood, like xxiv. 53, of constant attendance, rather than of 
actual residence within the temple precincts, although the latter may 
have been possible. She never missed a service, and between the 
services she spent most of her time in the temple. In spite of her 
age she kept more than the customary fasts (comp. v. 33), perhaps 
more than the Mondays and Thursdays (see on xviii. 12), and spent 
an unusual amount of time in prayer. 


1 The first aorist of {#v is late Greek. It occurs Acts Xxvi. 5 ; Rom. xiv. 94 
Rey. ii. 8, xx. 4. Attic writers use ¢Biwy, which is not found in N.T 


Il. 837-39.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 73 


Aatpevovea, Freq. in Lk., Paul, and Heb. See on iv. 8. Not in Mk. 
or Jn. Mt. iv. 10 from Deut. vi. 13.—vikta k. qpépav. Comp. Acts 
xxvi. 7. This is the usual order: Mk. iv. 27, v. 5; Acts xx. 31; 1 Thes. 
ii. 9, i. 10; 2 Thes. iii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 5; 2 Tim. i. 3. But the other is 
also common: xvill. 7; Acts ix. 24; Rev. ix. 8, etc.; and in O.T. is more 
common. It may be doubted whether the order makes any difference of 
meaning: see Ellicott on 1 Tim. v. 5, and comp. Hom. Od. ii. 345; Z/. 
xxiv. 73, v. 4yO; Plat. Zheaet. 151 A. 


838. atti tH wpa. “That very hour” (RV.): see on x. 7, 21. 
AV. exaggerates with “that instant,” as does Beza with eo tpso 
momento, and also Gen. with ‘“‘at the same instant.”—émortéca. 
“Coming up” and “standing by,” rather than ‘‘ coming suddenly ” 
(Gen. and Rhem.), although the word often has this meaning from 
the context. Comp. xxi. 34, x. 40, xx. 1; Acts iv. 1, vi. 12, xxil. 13, 
xxili. 27 ; and see on ver. 9.—dv@wpodoyeito. The avri does not 
tefer to Symeon, meaning that “she 7 ¢uxn gave thanks”; but to 
the making 4 return, which is involved in all thanksgiving: Ps. 
Ixxvili. 13, Ezra ili. 11; 3 Mac. vi. 33; Zest. XZZ. Patr. Judah i. 

éd\dde. Not on that occasion, but afterwards, “she was 
habitually speaking.” When she met Mary and Joseph she could 
not speak waow Tots rpoodexopévors, for they were not present. 
Grammatically wept avtoé may refer to 76 @cd, but it evidently 
tefers to the Child. Godet divides the people into three sections : 
the Pharisees, who expected a political deliverer ; the Sadducees, 
who expected nothing; and the blessed few, who expected the 
spiritual deliverance or consolation (ver. 25) of Jerusalem. Bengel 
argues from waow erant igitur non pauct, which does not follow, 
especially when we consider Lk.’s fondness for the word. 


AUtpwow “lepoveadyp. This, without év, is certainly the true reading 
(SB, many Versions and Fathers), “‘redemption of Jerusalem.” Comp. Is. 
xl. 2. Fiction would probably have given Anna alsoa hymn. Against the 
hypothesis that this narrative is ‘‘a poetical and symbolical representation,” 
Schleiermacher asks, ‘‘ Why should the author, along with Symeon, have 
introduced Anna, who is not made even to answer any poetical purpose?” 


89. éré\ecay. “‘ Brought to a close, accomplished”; especially 
of executing what has been prescribed: xii. 50, Xviil. 31, XXil. 37 ; 
Acts xiii. 29; Rom. ii. 27; Jas. ii. 8. See Jn. xix. 28, which 
illustrates the difference between rteAéw and Tedctdw. Syr-Sin. 
here inserts “Joseph and Mary” as nom. to “accomplished.” 
Why not “ His father and His mother” (ver. 33) or “ His parents” 
(ver. 43), if that text was framed to discredit the virgin birth? 

Nafapér. Lk. appears to know nothing of the visit of the 
Magi. It would have suited his theme of the wnzversality of the 
Gospel so well, that he would hardly have omitted it, if he had 
known it. In that case he was not familiar with our First Gospel. 
From Mt. ii. 11 we infer that the Holy Family, after the Purifi- 
_cation, returned to Bethlehem and there occupied a house (77 


74 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II 89-41 


oixfav). The parents may have thought that the Son of David, 
born in Bethlehem, ought to be brought up there. Thence they 
fly to Egypt, a flight not mentioned in the authority used by Lk. 

40. The conclusion of a separate narrative: comp. i. 80. 
Contrast the reticence of this verse (which is all that we know 
respecting the next eleven years) with the unworthy inventions of 
the apocryphal gospels. 

jvEavev K. Expatatodto. Of bodily development in size and 
strength ; for wvevmare is an insertion from i. 80.—m)npotpevoy. 
Pres. part. “Being filled” day by day. The copia is to be regarded 
as wisdom in the highest and fullest sense. The intellectual, moral, 
and spiritual growth of the Child, like the physical, was veaZ, His 
was a perfect humanity developing perfectly, unimpeded by 
hereditary or acquired defects. It was the first instance of such a 
growth in history. For the first time a human infant was realizing 
the ideal of humanity. 

xdpis Gcod iv ew atts. See on iv. 22 and comp. Acts iv. 33. 

It was near the beginning of this interval that the Jews sent an embassy of 
fifty to follow Archelaus to Rome, to protest against his accession, and to 
petition that Judza might be annexed to Syria (Jos. B. /. ii. 6. 13 Ant. xvii. 
II. 1), of which fact we perhaps have a trace in the parable of the Pounds 
(xix. 14). And it was near the end of this interval that another embassy went 
to complain of Archelaus to Augustus: and he was then deposed, and banished 
to Vienne in Gaul (Avs. xvii. 13. 2; B. /. ii. 7. 3). Lewin, Paste Sacrz, 377, 
944, IOII, 1026. 


41-52. The Boyhood of the Messiah. 


His Visit to Jerusalem and the Temple, and His first recorded 
Words. Here again, as in the Circumcision, the Purification, and 
the Presentation, the idea of fidelity to the Law is very con- 
spicuous. Hort, /udaistic Christianity, Lect. ii., Macmillan, 1894. 


41. kat éros. The expression occurs here only in N.T. 
Combined with the imperf. it expresses the habitual annual practice 
of Josephand Mary. At the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles 
every male had to go up to Jerusalem (Ex. xxiii. 14-17, Xxxiv. 23; 
Deut. xvi. 16). But since the Dispersion this law could not be 
kept ; yet most Palestinian Jews tried to go at least once a year. 
About women the Law says nothing, but Hillel prescribed that 
they also should go up to the Passover. Mary, like Hannah 
(1 Sam. i. 7), probably went out of natural piety, and not in 
obedience to Hillel’s rule. 


TH €opty. ‘‘ For the feast,” or, more probably, ‘‘a¢ the feast”: dat. of 
time, as in viii. 29, xii. 20, xili. 14, 15, 16; Acts vii. 8, xii. 21, xxi. 26, 
xxil. 13, xxvii. 23. In class. Grk. 77 €opry without év is rare: Win. xxxi. 5, 
p- 269. The phrase 7 éopry rod mdoxa occurs again Jn. xiii. I only; not in 


Il. 41-44.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 76 


LXX. The fact that yove?s has not been changed here, even in those MSS. 
in which vv. 27 and 43 have been corrupted, is some evidence that the 
corruption was not made for dogmatic reasons. The love of amplification or 
of definiteness might suffice. 


42, érav dédexa. At the age of twelve a young Jew became 
‘a son of the Law,” and began to keep its enactments respecting 
feasts, fasts, and the like. The mention of the age implies that 
since the Presentation Jesus had not been up to Jerusalem.— 
évaBawovtwv. Imperf. part. “On their usual going up.”—xara 76 
€00s. See small print on i. 9. 

43. kai teewodvtwy. Note the change of tense. “ And after 
they had fulfilled.” There is nothing ungrammatical in the com- 
bination of an aor. with an imperf. part. But the reading avaBavtwv 
is an obvious correction to avoid apparent awkwardness.—ras 
jepas. The prescribed seven days (Ex. xii. 15, 16; Lev. xxiii. 
6-8 ; Deut. xvi. 3), or the customary two days, for many pilgrims 
left after the principal sacrifices were over. 

iméuewev. Contains an idea of persistence and perseverance, 
and hence is used of remaining after others have gone: comp. Acts 
xvil. 14. The attraction of Divine things held Him fast in spite of 
the departure of His parents. It would be His first experience of 
the temple services, and especially of the slaying of the Paschal 
lamb.—é6 mais. ‘The Boy,” to distinguish from 76 ra:d/ov: see on 
ver. 52.—ouk éyvwoay. This shows what confidence they had in 
Him, and how little they were accustomed to watch Him. That 
it shows neglect on their part is a groundless assertion. They 
were accustomed to His obedience and prudence, and He had 
never caused them anxiety. See Hase, Geschichte Jesu, § 28, 
p. 276, ed. 1891. 

44, ti cuvodia. “The caravan.” The inhabitants of a village, 
or of several neighbouring villages, formed themselves into a 
caravan, and travelled together. The Nazareth caravan was so 
long that it took a whole day to look through it. The caravans 
went up singing psalms, especially the ‘songs of degrees” (Ps. 
CXX.—Cxxxlv.): but they would come back with less solemnity. It 
was probably when the caravan halted for the night that He was 
missed. At the present day the women commonly start first, and 
the men follow; the little children being with the mothers, and the 
older with either. If this was the case then, Mary might fancy that 
He was with Joseph, and Joseph that He was with Mary. Tristram, 
Lastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 56. 

huépas 6d6v. In LXX 6ddv juépas (Num. xi. 31; 1 Kings xix. 4). Comp. 
mopelay nuépas tds (Jon. iii. 4). 
he compound dvefyjrovy expresses thoroughness (Acts xi. 25 ; Job iii. 4, 
x. 6; 2 Mac. xiii. 21). 


avyyevetow. A barbarous form of dat. plur. found also Mk. vi. 4 and 
1 Mac. x. 89. For yworois see on xxiii. 49. 


76 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I 45-47, 


45. ph edpdvtes. “Because they did not find”. see on iii. 9. 
—inéotpeay dvalntoivres. The turning back was a single act, the 
seeking continued a long time. Comp. Mk. viii. 11, x. 2. Insuch 
cases the pres. part. is not virtually fut., as if it meant “in order to 
seek.” The seeking was present directly the turning back took 
place. Win. xlv. 1. b, p. 429. For éméotpepav see small print on 
i. 56, and for éyévero see detached note after ch. i. 

46. i\pépas tpets. These are reckoned in three ways. (1) One 
day out, at the end of which the Child is missed; one day back; 
and on the third the finding. This is probably correct. (2) One 
day’s search on the journey back ; one day’s search in Jerusalem ; 
and on the third the finding. (3) Two days’ search in Jerusalem, 
and then the finding. This is improbable. Jerusalem was not a 
large place, and less than a day would probably suffice. We may 
understand that on all three days Jesus was in the temple with the 
doctors. Godet conjectures that He there had an experience 
similar to that of Jacob at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 10-22): “God 
became more intimately Azs God, As Father.” There is no 
evidence. 

év T@ tep@. Not in a synagogue, if there was one in the temple 
enclosure, but probably on the terrace, where members of the 
Sanhedrin gave public instruction on sabbaths and festivals. If 
this is correct, His parents had left on the third day, and the 
Passover was still going on. If all had been over, this public 
teaching would have ceased. 

xaOe{dpnevov. Asa learner, not asateacher. St. Paul sat “at 
the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts xxii. 3). Jesus probably sat on the 
ground, while the Rabbis sat on benches or stood.—ev péow. See 
on viii. 7. Not dignitatis causa@ (Beng.) or as doctor doctorum 
(Calov.), but because there were teachers on each side, possibly in 
a semicircle. The point is that He was not hidden, but where He 
could easily be found. For a list of distinguished persons who 
may have been present, see Farrar, Z. of Christ, i. ch. vi., from 
Sepp, Leben Jesu, i. § 17. Of biblical personages, Symeon, 
Gamaliel, Annas, Caiaphas, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea 
are possibilities. 

dxovovTa aitay kal émepwravta adtous. Note that the hearing is 
placed first, indicating that He was there as a learner; and it was 
as such that He questioned them. It was the usual mode of 
instruction that the pupil should ask as well as answer questions. 
A holy thirst for knowledge, especially of sacred things, would 
prompt His inquiries. The Aradic Gospel of the Infancy represents 
Him as instructing them in the statutes of the Law and the 
mysteries of the Prophets, as well as in astronomy, medicine, 
physics, and metaphysics (1.-lii.). See on iii. ro. 

47. éfictavro. A strong word expressing great amazement : 


II. 47-49.]| THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 77 


vill. 56; Acts -ii. 7, 12, vili. 13, ix. 21. For émt comp. Wisd. v. 2 
and the éwi which Lk. commonly uses after Gavpdew (see on ver. 
33); and for mdvtes ot dxovovtes see on i. 66.—ouvéser. “ Intelli- 
gence”; an application of the ao¢ia with which He was ever being 
filled (ver. 40): see Lft. on Col. i. 9.—démoxpiceow. His replies 
would show His wonderful intellectual and spiritual development 
The vanity of Josephus (Vita, 2) and of Bellarmine (Via, pp. 
28-30, ed. Dollinger und Reusch, Bonn, 1887) leads them to 
record similar amazement respecting themselves. 

48. iSdvtes. Return to the original subject, ot yovets.—éfe- 
mdynoov. Another strong expression: ix. 43; Acts xiii. 12. 
They were astonished at finding Him there, and thus occupied, 
apparently without thought of them. 

pat p adtod. It was most natural that she should be the first 
to speak. Her reproachful question perhaps contains in it a vein 
of self-reproach. She and Joseph had appeared to be negligent. 

{ntooper. “Are seeking”: the pain of the anxiety has not yet 
quite ceased. For kdyo see on xvi. 9. 


8 B read {nroduer, which WH. adopt. Almost all other editors follow 
almost all other authorities in reading é{yrodper. 


dduvdpevor. ‘In great anguish” of mind, as in Acts xx. 38 and 
Zech. xii. 10; of body and mind, xvi. 24, 25; comp. Rom. ix. 2; 
1 Tim. vi. 10. The poydata (ver. 35) has already begun its work. 
Anguish cannot be reasonable. But they might have been sure 
that the Child who was to be the Messiah could not be lost. This 
agrees with ver. 50. 

49. ti dt efytetré pe; Not a reproof, but an expression of 
surprise: comp. Mk. ii. 16. He is not surprised at their coming 
back for Him, but at their not knowing where to find Him. 


Here also §& has the pres. {yreire. 


€v Tois TOU watpds pou. ‘Engaged in My Father’s business” is 
a possible translation: comp. 7a Tod cod (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 
33); T2. Tov Kupiov (1 Cor. vii. 32, 34). But “in My Father’s house” 
is probably right, as in Gen. xli. 51. Irenzeus (zr. v. 36. 2) para- 
phrases the év 77) oixia of Jn. xiv. 2 by év rots: comp. év tots “Apav 
(Esth. vii. 9); é€v tots airod (Job xvill. 19); Ta Avxwvos (Theoc. ii. 
76). Other illustrations in Wetst. The Armenian Version has 
in domo patris met. The words indicate His surprise that His 
parents did not know weve to find Him. His Father’s business 
could have been done elsewhere. There is a gentle but decisive 
correction of His Mother’s words, “Thy father and I,” in the reply, 
“Where should a child” be (dec), but in his father’s house? and My 
Father is God.” For the Set see on iv. 43. It is notable that the 
first recorded words of the Messiah are an expression of His Divine 


78 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 49-52. 


Sonship as man; and His question implies that they knew it, or 
ought to know it. But there is nothing which implies that He had 
just received a revelation of this relationship. These first recorded 
words are the kernel of the whole narrative, and the cause of its 
having been preserved. They must mean more than that Jesus is 
a son of Abraham, and therefore has God as His Father. His 
parents would easily have understood so simple a statement as 
that. 

50. of cuvfxay 76 ffpa. L7go non ex illis hoc didicerat (Beng.). 
There is nothing inconsistent in this. They learnt only gradually 
what His Messiahship involved, and this is one stage in the process. 
From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recog- 
nized that at this stage she and Joseph had not understood. This 
verse, especially when combined with the next, shows clearly who 
was the source of Lk.’s information.} 

51. qv Gmotaccdpevos. This sums up the condition of the 
Messiah during the next seventeen years. ‘The analytical tense 
gives prominence to the continuance of the subjection: comp. i. 
18, 20, 21. For trordacoew comp. x. 17, 20. 

adtots. The last mention of Joseph. He was almost certainly 
dead before Christ’s public ministry began; but this statement of 
continued subjection to him and Mary probably covers some years. 
The main object of the statement, however, may be to remove the 
impression that in His reply (ver. 49) Jesus resents, or henceforward 
repudiates, their authority over Him. 

Suetnpet. Expresses careful and continual keeping. Gen. 
XXXVll. II is a Close parallel: comp. Acts xv. 29. We must not 
confine mdyta Ta pypata to wv. 48, 49; the phrase is probably used 
in the Hebraistic sense of “things spoken of.” Comp. i. 65, il. 19; 
Acts v. 32: but in all these cases “sayings” is more possible than 
here. Still more so in Dan. vii. 28: 76 fyya ev tH Kapdia pov 
duerypyoa [? cvvernpyoa]. 

52. The verse is very similar to 1 Sam. ii. 26, of which it is 
perhaps a quotation. See Athan. Con. Avian. iii. 51, p. 203, ed. 
Bright ; Card. Newman, Select Treatises of S. Athan. 1. Pp. 419; 
Wace & Schaff, p. 421; Pearson, On the Creed, art. ill. p. 160. 

"Ingots. The growth is very clearly marked throughout: 70 
Bpédos (ver. 16); TO aasdéiov (ver. 40); “Incots 6 wats (ver. 43); 
*Incods (ver. 52). Von statim plena statura, ut Protoplasti, appa- 
ruit: sed omnes xtatis gradus sanctificavit. Senectuseum non decebat 
(Beng.). Schaff, Zhe Person of Christ, pp. 10-17, Nisbet, 1880. 


1 “This fine tender picture, in which neither truth to nature, nor the beauty 
which that implies, is violated in a single line, . . . cannot have been devised 
by human hands, which, when left to themselves, were always betrayed into 
coarseness and exaggeration, as shown by the apocryphal gospels” (Keim, /és. 
of Naz., Eng tr. ii. p. 137). 


IZ. 52.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 79 


mpockomrev. Here only in the Gospels, and elsewhere in N.T. 
only in S. Paul (Rom. xiii. 12; Gal. i. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 16, iii. 9, 13). 
The metaphor probably comes from pioneers cutting in front; but 
some refer it to /engthening by hammering. Uence the meaning of 
“promote”: but more often it is intransitive, as always in N.T. 
Actual growth is expressed by the word, and to explain it of 
progressive manifestation is inadequate. Hooker, £ccd. Pol. bk. v. 

. I-3. 
cl te. Not “knowledge” but “wisdom,” which includes know- 
ledge: it is used of the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts vii. 22), 
Jesus was capable of growth in learning; e.g. He increased in 
learning through experience in suffering: Euafev ad’ dv éxabev 
(Heb. v. 8, where see Westcott’s notes). 

fAtxia. Not “age,” which is probably the meaning xii. 25 and 
Mt. vi. 27, but would be rather an empty truism here. Rather, 
“stature,” as in xix. 3: justam proceritatem nactus est ac decoram 
(Beng.). His intellectual and moral growth (co¢/a), as well as His 
physical growth (7Au«ia), was perfect. The mpockomre 7Acxig corre- 
sponds to eweyaAvvero (in some copies éxopevero peyaAvvdpevor) in 
1 Sam. ii. 26. 

xdpin. “Goodwill, favour, loving-kindness” (ver. 40, i. 30; 
Acts iv. 33, vil. 10): see on iv. 22. That He advanced in favour 
with God plainly indicates that there was moral and spiritual 
growth. At each stage He was perfect for that stage, but the 
perfection of a child is inferior to the perfection of a man; it is 
the difference between perfect innocence and perfect holiness. He 
was perfectly (reXéws) man, as set forth in the Council of Constan- 
tinople (A.D. 381) against Apollinaris, who held that in Jesus the 
Divine Logos was a substitute fora human soul. In that case an 
increase in codia and in xdpis rapa Oe would have been incon- 
ceivable, as Pearson points out (Oz the Creed, art. iii. p. 160; comp. 
E. Harold Browne, Lx. of the XXXIX. Articles, iv. 2. 4). 

kat vOpdmous. Nothing of the kind is said of John (i. 66, 80); 
his sternness and his retirement into the desert prevented it. But 
an absolutely perfect human being living among men could not 
fail to be attractive until His public ministry brought Him into 
collision with their prejudices and sins.1_ Comp. what Josephus 
says of the development of Moses (Azz. ii. 9. 6); also the promise 
made in Prov. iii. 4 to him who keeps mercy and truth: “so shalt 

1 Pearson in a long note gives the chief items of evidence as to the primitive 
belief that Is. liii. 2, 3 was to be understood literally of the personal appearance 
of Jesus as “fa personage no way amiable ; an aspect, indeed, rather uncomely.” 
. . . ‘But what the aspect of His outward appearance was, because the Scrip- 
tures are silent, we cannot now know” (Ox the Creed, art. ii. pp. 87, 88). 

Lange has some good remarks on the ‘‘ master-stroke of Divine wisdom ” 
which rag Jesus to be brought up at Nazareth (Z. of Christ, Eng. tr. i. pp. 
317, 324). 


80 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IZ 52-III. 1. 


thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and 
man ”—é€vdmov Kupiov kat avOpdrrwv. 

For answers to the objections urged by Strauss against the 
historical character of this narrative see Hase, Gesch. Jesu, § 28, 
p. 280, ed. 1891. 


I, 1-IX. 60. THE MINISTRY. 


III. 1-22. The External Preparation for the Ministry of the 
Christ: the Ministry of John the Baptist, Mt. iii, 1-12; Mk. 
i. 1-8; Jn. i. 15-24. 

fTic quasi scena N.T. panditur is Bengel’s illuminative remark. 
“Tt was the glory of John the Baptist to have revived the function 
of the prophet” (Zece Homo, p. 2); and it is difficult for us to 
realize what that meant. A nation, which from Samuel to Malachi 
had scarcely ever been without a living oracle of God, had fer 
three or four centuries never heard the voice of a Prophet. It 
seemed as if Jehovah had withdrawn from His people. The 
breaking of this oppressive silence by the voice of the Baptist 
caused a thrill through the whole Jewish population throughout 
the world. Lk. shows his appreciation of the magnitude of the 
crisis by the sixfold attempt to give it an exact date. Of the four 
Evangelists he is the only one to whom the title of historian in the 
full sense of the term can be given; and of Christian writers he is 
the first who tries to fit the Gospel history into the history of the 
world. It is with a similar wish to do justice to a crisis that 
Thucydides gives a sixfold date of the entry of the Thebans into 
Plateea, by which the thirty years’ truce was manifestly broken and 
the Peloponnesian War begun (ii. 2; comp. v. 20). 

- The section is carefully arranged. First the Date (1, 2); then 
a Description of the new Prophet (3-6); then an account of his 
Preaching and its Effects (7-17) ; and an Explanation as to how it 
came to an End (18-20). He baptizes the Christ (21, 22). 


1,2. The Date. The event that is thus elaborately dated is 
the appearance of the new Prophet, not the beginning of Christ’s 
ministry. See below on the conclusion of ver. 2. Ellicott con- 
siders it the date of the captivity of the Baptist. This had been 
advocated by Wieseler in his Sywapszs (ii. ch. il. Eng. tr. p. 
178), but he abandoned it in his Beztrdge. Others would make 
it refer to Christ’s baptism, which may have followed closely 


Ii. 1.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 81 


upon John’s first appearance as a preacher (Caspari, Chron. Eini. 
§ 33, Eng. tr. p. 41). But the interval between the beginning of 
John’s ministry and his baptizing Jesus cannot be determined. 
Some estimate it at one month, others at six months, because John 
was six months older than Jesus (Lewin, Fast? Sacri, 1171). Weiss 
(Leben Jesu, I. ii. 8, Eng. tr. i. p. 316) shows that the interval was 
not more than six months. The appearance of one who seemed 
to be a Prophet soon attracted immense attention; and when 
large numbers accepted his doctrine and baptism, it became 
imperative that the hierarchy should make inquiry as to his 
authority and claims. But it appears from Jn. i. 19-28 that the 
first investigation made by the Sanhedrin was about the time when 
the Baptist met Jesus. In neither case can year or time of year 
be determined. Jf Jesus was born towards the end, John about 
the middle, of 749 (B.c. 5), then John might begin to preach about 
the middle of 779, and Jesus be baptized early in 780 (A.D. 27). 


It is little or no confirmation of this result that both the Greek and the 
Roman Churches celebrate the Baptism of Christ on Jan. 6th. Originally, the 
Nativity, the Visit of the Magi, and the Baptism were all celebrated on Jan. 6th. 
When Dec. 25th was adopted as the date of the Nativity, the Roman Church 
continued to celebrate the Baptism with the Epiphany to the Gentiles on Jan. 
6th, while the Greek Church transferred the latter along with the Nativity to 
Dec. 25th, commemorating the Baptism alone on Jan. 6th. The fact that both 
the Eastern and the Western Church have concurred in celebrating the Baptism 
on Jan. 6th seems at first sight to be imposing testimony. But there is little 
doubt Pe all trustworthy evidence had perished before any of these dates were 
selected. 

Instead of the elaborate dates given in these first two verses, Mt. (iii. 1) has 
simply "Hv 6¢ rats quépars éxelvars, while Mk. (i. 4) has nothing. Comp. the 
somewhat similar dating of the erection of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings vi. 1). 
Beng. says of this date, Apocha ecclesiee omnium maxima. Hic quasz scena N.T. 
panditur. Ne nativitates guidem, aut mortis, resurrectionts, ascensionts christé 
tempus tam precise definitur. 


1. “Ev érer S€ wevrexardexdtw Tis yepovias TiBepiov Kaicapos. 
He naturally begins with the Roman Empire, and then takes the 
tocal governors, civil and ecclesiastical. ‘Now in the 15th year 
of the reign of Tiberius Cesar,” or “of Tiberius as Cesar.” Is the 
15th year to be counted from the death of Augustus, Aug. roth, 

-A.U.C. 767, A.D. 14? or from the time when he was associated 
with Augustus as joint ruler at the end of 764 or beginning of 
765, A.D. I1 or 12? It is impossible to determine this with 
certainty. Good authorities (Zumpt, Wieseler, Weiss) plead for 
the latter reckoning, which makes the Gospel chronology as a 
whole run more smoothly; but it is intrinsically less probable, 


1 For the chief data respecting the limits of our Lord’s life see Lft. 
Biblical Essays, p. 58, note; and on Lk.’s chronology in these verses see 
Twald, Ast. of /srael, vi., Eng. tr. p. 149, and Lange, Z. of C. bk. ii. pt. iik, 
Tiga je e 


82 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [TIL 1. 


and seems to be inconsistent with the statements of Tacitus and 
Suetonius. 


The main points are these. 1. Tiberius was not joint Emferor with 
Augustus; he was associated with him only in respect of the provinces and 
armies: wt provincias cum Augusto communiter administraret, simulque 
censum ageret (Suet. 77d. xxiy); ut wquum et jus im omnibus provinciis 
exercitibusque esset (Vell. Paterc. ii. 121); jtlius, collega itmperiz, consors 
tribunicix protestatis adsumitur, omnisque per exercitus ostentatur (Tac. Ann. 
i. 3.3; comp. i. 11. 2 and iii. 56. 2). 2. It is clear from Tacitus (Azz. i. 5-7) 
that, when Augustus died, 7zberzus was not regarded by himself or by o:hers as 
already Emperor. Suetonius confirms this by saying that Tiberius, while 
manifestly getting the imperial power into his hands, for a time refused the 
offer of it (77d. xxiv.). 3. No instance is known of reckoning the reign of 
Tiberius from his association with Augustus. The coins of Antioch, Lk.’s own 
city, which helped to convert Wieseler from the one view to the other by 
seeming to date the reign of Tiberius from the association, are not admitted by 
Eckhel to be genuine. On the other hand, there are coins of Antioch which 
date the reign of Tiberius from the death of Augustus. It remains, therefore, 
that, although to reckon from the association was a possible method, especially 
in the provinces, for there Tiberius had been really a consort of Augustus, yet 
it is more probable that Lk. reckons in the usual way from the death of the 
predecessor (see Wieseler, Chron. Synop. ii. ch. ii.; Keim, Jesus of Naz. ii. 
pp. 381, 382; Lewin, Fastz Sacrz, 1044; Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p- 65). 

ifteen years from the death of Augustus would be A.D. 29, at which time our 
Lord would probably be 32 years of age, which sufficiently agrees with Lk.’s 
“about 30” (ver. 23). J the earlier date is admissible, the agreement becomes 
exact. : 


tyepovias. Quite a vague term, and applicable to the rule of 
emperor, king, 4gatus, or procurator, as is shown by Jos. Anz. 
XVili. 4. 2, and by the use of jpyéuwv in N.T.: xx. 20, xxi. 12; 
Acts xxiii. 24, 26, 33, etc. Wieseler is alone in seeing in this 
word (instead of povapxia), and in xatcap (instead of Z<Baords), 
evidence that the co-regency of Tiberius is meant (Beifrdge z. 
richtigen Wairdigung d. Evan. 1869, pp. 191-194). From the 
Emperor Lk. passes to the local governor under him. 

tyyepovevovtos. ‘The more exact érurpoevovros of D and other 
authorities is an obvious correction to mark his office with pre- 
Cision: ézitporos=procurator. Pilate succeeded Valerius Gratus 
A.D. 25, and was recalled a.D. 36 or 37 by Tiberius, who died, 
March A.D. 37, before Pilate reached Rome. Having mentioned 
the Roman officials, Lk. next gives the local national rulers. 

tetpapxouvtos. The word occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is 
used by Josephus of Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis (B._/. iii. 10. 7). 
The title tetrarch was at first used literally of the governor of a 
fourth ; e.g. of one of the four provinces of Thessaly (Eur. AZ. 
1154), or one of the fourths into which each of the three divisions 
of Galatia were divided (Strabo, 430, 540, 560, 567). But after- 
wards it came to mean the governor of any division, as a third or 
a half, or of any small country; any ruler not a Baowdeds (Hor. 


III. 1.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 83 


Sat. i. 3. 12). Such seems to be the meaning here; but it may 
be used in its literal sense, Pilate’s province representing the 
fourth tetrarchy, viz. the dominions of Archelaus. 


In d we have the singular rendering: 2 anno guintodecimo ducatus Tiberi 
Cwxsaris procurante Pontio Pilato Judex, quaterducatus Galizx FHerode. 


‘Hpwdov. Antipas, son of Herod the Great and Malthace the 
Samaritan. See small print on i. 5 for the iota subscript. Two 
inscriptions have been found, one at Cos and one at Delos, which 
almost certainly refer to him as tetrarch, and son of Herod the 
king (Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. I. vol. ii. p. 17). 
His coins have the title tetrarch, and, like those of his father, bear 
no image. Herod Philip was the first to have any portrait on the 
coins of a Jewish prince. He had the images of Augustus and 
Tiberius put upon his coins. As his dominions were wholly 
heathen, this would cause little scandal. He even went so far as 
to put the temple of Augustus at Panias on his coins. Herod 
Antipas was made tetrarch of Perea and Galilee, B.c. 4 (Jos. Ans. 
xvii. 11. 4; B./. ii. 6. 3). As he ruled this district until a.p. 39 
or 40, the whole of Christ’s life falls within his reign, and nearly 
the whole of Christ’s ministry took place within his dominions. 
For his character see on xili. 32. He was by courtesy allowed 
the title of Baowev’s (Mk. vi. 14); and as Agrippa had obtained 
this by right, Antipas and Herodias went to Rome, a.D. 39, to try 
and get the courtesy title made a real one by Caligula. The 
attempt led to his banishment, the details of which are uncertain, 
for Josephus makes inconsistent statements. Either he was 
banished: at Baiz, A.D. 39, to Lugdunum (Ant. xviii. 7. 2), or he 
had a second audience with Caligula a¢ Lugdunum, a.p. 40, and 
was banished to Spain (B. /. ii. 9. 6). The latter is probably 
correct (Lewin, Fasti Sacrt, 1561). 

$iNiamov. Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleo- 
patra. He reigned for nearly 37 years, B.C. 4 to A.D. 33, when he 
died at Julias, which he had built and named in honour of the 
infamous Julia, d. of Augustus and wife of Tiberius. He was the 
builder of Czesarea Philippi (2.7. ii. 9. 1), and was the best of the 
Herods (Azz. xviii. 4. 6). He married his niece Salome soon 
after she had danced for the head of the Baptist, ¢ a.p. 31 (Azz. 
xviii. 5. 4). Trachonitis (tpaxdv=rtpaxds Kat aerpwdys tozos) 
derived its name from the rugged character of the country. It lay 
N.E. of Galilee in the direction of Damascus, and its inhabitants 
were skilled archers and very often banditti (Az. xv. 10.1). The 
expression tis “Ir. kai Tp. xwpas, “the region of Itureea and 
Trachonitis,” seems to indicate that more than these two is 
included; probably Auranitis and Batanza. “Imvpaia, both here 
and perhaps everywhere, is an adjective. 


34 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [|HIL1, 2. 


Avoaviou tis “ABiAnvis tetp. Not merely Strauss, Gfrorer, B. 
Bauer, and Hilgenfeld, but even Keim and Holtzmann, attribute 
to Lk. the gross chronological blunder of supposing that Lysanias, 
son of Ptolemy, who ruled this region previous to B.c. 36, when he 
was killed by M. Antony, is still reigning 60 years after his death. 
Such a mistake is very improbable; and the only difficulty about 
Lk.’s statement is that we have no indisputable evidence of this 
tetrarch Lysanias. 


But 1. Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, was styled 42mg and not tetrarch, and the 
seat of his kingdom was Chadczs in Coele-Syria, not Abila in Abilene. 2. It is 
pure assumption that no one of his name ever ruled in these parts afterwards. 
3. Josephus (Azz. xix. 5. 1) speaks of ‘‘ Abila of Lysanias,” and (xx. 7. 1) of a 
tetrarchy of Lysanias (comp. &. /. ii. 11. 5, 12. 8); and as the son of Ptolemy 
was not called tetrarch, nor was connected with Abila, and, moreover, reigned 
for only 5 or 6 years, it is improbable that ‘‘ Abila of Lysanias” was called 
after him. Therefore these passages in Josephus confirm rather than oppose Lk. 
4. A medal found by Pococke designates Lysanias ‘‘ ¢e¢rarch and high priest.” 
If this refers to either, it is more likely to refer to Lk.’s Lysanias. 5. Two 
inscriptions exist, one of which proves that Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, 
left children ; the other, that at the time when Tiberius was associated with 
Augustus there was a ‘‘tetrarch Lysanias” (Boeckh, Corp. zuscr. Gr. 4523, 
4521). See Davidson, Jutr. to N.T. i. pp. 214-221, Ist ed.; Rawlinson, 
Bampton Lectures for 1859, p. 203; Wieseler in Herzog,? i. pp. 87-89; and 
the reff. in Thayer’s Grimm under Avoavias, 


2. emt dpxepews “Avva kat Katdda. Lk. now passes to the 
ecclesiastical rulers. ‘The singular is probably not accidental, and 
certainly not ironical. ‘Under the high priest Annas-Caiaphas,” 
which means that between them they discharged the duties, or that 
each of them in different senses was regarded high priest, Annas 
de jure (Acts iv. 6) and Caiaphas de facto (Jn. xi. 49). 


Annas had held office A.D. 7-14, when he had been deposed by Valerius 
Gratus, the predecessor of Pilate, who set up in succession Ismael, Eleazar 
(son of Annas), Simon, and Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, who held office A.D. 
18-36, when he was deposed by Vitellius. Four more sons of Annas succeeded 
Caiaphas, the last of whom (another Annas) put to death James the “‘ brother 
of the Lord’ and the first bishop of Jerusalem. It is manifest that Annas 
retained very great influence, and sometimes acted as high priest. ‘‘ Annas 
the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as 
many as were of the kindred of the high priest” (Acts iv. 6). Perhaps, so far 
as it was safe to do so, he was encouraged to ignore the Roman appointments and 
to continue in office during the high priesthoods of his successors. This would 
be especially easy when his own son-in-law or son happened to be the Roman 
nominee.! There were no less than twenty-eight high priests from the time of 
Herod the Great to the capture of Jerusalem by Titus (Jos. Am¢. xx. 10). 


éyéveto fipa Ocod emi “lwdynv. It is clear from this that what 
Lk. is anxious to date with precision is not any event in the life 
of the Messiah, but the appearance of the new Prophet, who was 


1 Josephus says that David appointed Zadok high priest mer’ "ABia@dpov, 
giros yap qv aut (Ant. vii. 5. 4). See Lft. Bzb/cal Essays, p. 163. 


Ill. 2,3.) PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 85 


to be the Messiah’s herald, and who was by some mistaken for 
the Messiah. John’s preaching and baptizing is an epoch with 
Lk. (Acts i. 22, x. 37, xiii. 24). As distinct from 6 Adyos tod 
@cov, which means the Gospel message as a whole (see on 
Vili. 11), f7za Ocod means some particular utterance (Mt. iv. 4; 
comp. Lk. xxii. 61). The phrase yiveoOat fjya Kupiov (not God) 
is freq. in LXX (Gen. xv. 1; 1 Sam. xv. 10; 2 Sam. vil. 4; 1 Kings 
Xvli. 2, 8, xviii. 1, xx. 28, etc.) ; also yiverOot Adyov Kupiov (2 Sam. 
exw 0s) © Kings vi. ©i, xi. 22, x. 20, xvi. 1, etc.). It is the 
O.T. formula to express Divine inspiration. In all cases the 
phrase is almost always followed by zpés: but in 1 Chron. xxii. 8 (?) 
and Jer. i. 1 we have evi. Jer. i. 1 is a close parallel to this: ro 
pyya Tod Meod b éyévero eri “Iepeuiav. The phrase occurs nowhere 
else in N.T. 

*lwdvny Tov Zaxaptou vidv. Lk. alone describes the Baptist thus. 
No other N.T. writer mentions Zacharias.—é€v rH épypw. The one 
mentioned as his abode (i. 80). Both AV. and RV. rather obscure 
this by using “deserts” in i. 80 and “wilderness” here. Mt. calls 
it “the wilderness of Judzea” (iii. 1). It is the Jeshimon of 1 Sam. 
xxiii. 19. See D.Z.? art. “ Arabah,” and Stanley, Siz. & Pal. p. 310. 

3-6. Description of the New Prophet. Lk. omits the state- 
ments about his dress and food (Mt. iii. 4; Mk. i. 6), and also the 
going out of the people of Jerusalem and Judea to him (Mt. iii. 5 ; 
Mk. i. 5). The famous account of the Baptist in Jos. Azz. xviii. 
5. 2 should be compared. It may have been altered by Christian 
scribes, but its divergence from the Gospel narrative as to the 
motive for imprisoning and killing John, is in favour of its origin- 
ality.2 

3. macav meplxwpov Tod “lopSdvov. The same as “the plain of 
Jordan,” which is thus rendered in LXX Gen. xiii. 10, 11; by 7@ 
meptxopw tod ’I., 2 Chron. iv. 17; and by 1@ meptoixw rod ’I., 1 
Kings vii. 46. The expression covers a considerable portion of the 
Jordan valley at least as far north as Succoth (2 Chron. iv. 17). 
The Baptist, therefore, moved north from the limestone desert on 
the W. shore of the Dead Sea, and perhaps went almost the whole 
length of the valley to the confines of the Sea of Galilee. For 
“Bethany (Beth-Anijah=‘ House of Shipping’) beyond Jordan” 
must have been near Galilee (Jn. i. 28), and is supposed by 
Conder to be the same as Bashan (Handbook of the Bible, pp. 315, 
320). See, however, J.Z.? art. “ Bethabara.” John was some- 
times on one bank and sometimes on the other, for we read of his 
working in Peraa (Jn. x. 40). His selection of the valley of the 


1“ This part of John’s ministry, viz. his work as a reformer, Josephus has 
brought out prominently ; while he has entirely failed to notice the indelible 
stamp of the Baptist’s labours left upon the history of the Theocracy ” (Neander, 
L.J.C. § 34). 


86 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [1 8, 4 


Jordan as his sphere of work was partly determined by the need of 
water for immersion. Stanley, Siz. & Pal. p. 312. 

knptcowy . . . dpaptiav. Verbatim as Mk. i. 4. Nowhere in 
N.T. has xypiocey its primary meaning of “act as a herald”; but 
either “proclaim openly” (viii. 39, xii. 3; Mk. i. 45, etc.) or 
“preach the Gospel” (Mt. xi. 1; Mk. iii. 14; Rom. x. 14, 15, 
etc.). To “preach baptism” is to preach the necessity or value of 
baptism ; and “repentance baptism” (Bamticpa peravoias) is bap- 
tism connected with repentance as being an external symbol of the 
inward change (Acts xiii. 24, xix. 4). The repentance precedes 
the baptism, which seals it and reminds the baptized of his new 
obligations. To submit to this baptism was to confess that one 
was a sinner, and to pledge oneself to a new life. The “change 
of mind”? (jerdvova) has reference both to past deeds and to future 
purposes, and is the result of a realization of their true moral 
significance (Wsctt. on Heb. vi. 1, 6, xii. 17). This inward 
change is specially insisted upon in the account of John’s preach- 
ing in Jos. Avft. xviii. 5. 2. The word is rare in Mt. (ili. 8, 11) 
and Mk. (i. 4), and does not occur in Jn. It is freq. in Lk. (ver. 8, 
V. 32, xv. 7, xxiv. 473; Acts v. 31, xi. 18, etc.). We find it m 
Jos. Axi. xiii. 11. 3 of Aristobulus after the murder of his brother ; 
in Plut. Pevicles, x., of the Athenians after the banishment of 
Cimon ; and in Thuc. iii. 36. 3 of the Athenians after the sentence 
on Mitylene. See American Ch. Rev. No. 134, pp. 143 ff. John’s 
“repentance baptism” was eis dpeow dpaptiav. This was its 
purpose, assuring the penitent of forgiveness, and of deliverance 
from the burden, penalty, and bondage of sin (Trench, Sy. xxxiii.;. 
Crem. Zex. p. 297: comp. Lk. i. 77; Acts ii. 38; Heb. x. 18). 

4. ev BiB\w Adywr. With the exception of Phil. iv. 3, €v BiBAw 
is peculiar to Lk. (xx. 42; Acts i. 20, vii. 42). The form BéBXos 
is usual where the meaning is a writfng or document, BvBAos where 
the plant or papyrus as writing material is intended (Hdt. ii. 96. 3, 
v. 58. 3). For Adyo in the sense of the “utterances of a teacher 
or prophet” comp. Acts xx. 35 ; Amos i. 1. 

wv) Bodvtos . . . Tas TptBous adtod. From Mt. iii. 3 and Mk. 
i. 3 we see that, in the tradition of which all three make use, these 
words were quoted as applying to the Baptist. ‘This is therefore 
a primitive interpretation; and we learn from Jn. i. 23 that it 
originated with the Baptist himself. John was a ¢wvy making 
known the Adyos. ‘The whole man was a sermon.” The message 
was more than the messenger, and hence the messenger is regarded 


1 Lactantius, in writing de Pendtentza prefers res¢piscentza as a better, al- 
though still inadequate, rendering. Js enim quem facti suc panitet, errorem 
suum pristinum intelliget ; ideogue Greect melius et significantius perdvowp 
dicunt, quam nos latine possumus resipiscentiam aicere. Restpiscit enime aé 
mentem suam guast ab insania recipit, etc. (Div. Inst. Vi. 24. ©). 


Ii. 4-6.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 87 


as mainly a voice. Jn. has etOvvare for eifefas rovctre (i. 23), and 
this looks as if he were translating direct from the Hebrew, which 
has one word and not two. The quotation in the other three is 
identical, and (with the substitution of airod for tod @cod [jpar]) 
verbatim as LXX. Lk. quotes Is. xl. 4, 5 as well as xl. 3, and 
here slightly varies from LXX, having «decias for cielav, and ai 
Tpaxetat eis ddovs Aclas for } Tpaxeta eis redia.? 

év TH epypo. It is possible to take these words with éroiudoare 
rather than with gdwv7 Bodvros: but here, as in Mt. and Mk., the 
latter arrangement is more natural—vox clamantis in deserto. 
Barnabas (ix. 3) connects them with Boévros. It is evident from 
the scenery which is mentioned that it is in a desert that the road 
for the coming King has to be made. The details symbolize the 
moral obstacles which have to be removed by the repentance 
baptism of John, in order to prepare the people for the reception 
of the Messiah, or (as some prefer) of Jehovah (Is. xxxv. 8-10). 
That Lk. means the Messiah is shown by the substitution of atrot 
for rod @cod: and that this interpretation is in accordance with the 
primitive tradition is shown by the fact that all three Gospels have 
this substitution. Just as Oriental monarchs, when making a royal 
progress, send a courier before them to exhort the population to 
prepare roads, so the Messiah sends His herald to exhort His own 
people (Jn. i. 11) to prepare their hearts for His coming. 


5. gdpayt. ‘<A valley shut in by precipices, a ravine”; here only in 
N.T., but found in LXX (Judith ii. 8) and in class. Grk. (Thue. ii. 67. 4). 
It is perhaps from the same root as gapdw=‘‘ plough” and foro=“‘ bore.” 

Bovvés. Herodotus seems to imply that this is a Cyrenaic word (iv. 
199. 2): but it is freq. in later writers and in LXX. Comp. xxiii. 30, and 
for the sense Zech. iv. 7; Is. xl. 4. 


éotat Ta oKoha els, K.T.A. “The crooked places shall become 
straight ways, and the rough ways smooth ways”: 7.e. roads shall 
be made where there were none before, and bad roads shall be 
made good roads. Comp. the account of Vespasian’s march into 
Galilee, especially the work of the pioneers (Jos. 2. //. iii. 6. 2). 

6. aca odp§. Everywhere in N.T. this expression seems to 
refer to the human race only ; so even Mt. xxiv. 22; Mk. xiii. 20; 
1 Pet. i. 24; comp. Acts ii. 17; Rom. iii. 20. Fallen man, man 
in his frailty and need of help, is meant. In LXX it often in- 
cludes the brutes: Gen. vi. 19, vii. 15, 16, 21, viii. 17, ix. 11, 


1 Ewald says of the prophecy of which these verses form the introduction, that 
‘it is not only the most comprehensive, but also, in respect of its real prophetic 
subject-matter, the weightiest piece of that time, and altogether one of the most 
important portions of the O.T., and one of the richest in influence for all future 
time. . . . It is especially the thought of the passing away of the old time, 
and the flourishing of the new, which is the life of the piece” (Prophets of 0,7. 
Eng. tr. iv. pp. 244, 254; comp. pp. 257, 259). 


88 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IIL 6, 7 


15, 16, 17; Ps. cxxxvi. 25; Jer. xxxii. 27, xlv. 5. The phrase is 
one of many which occur frequently in Is. xl.—-lxvi., but not at all 
in the earlier chapters (Driver, /sacah, p. 197). 

75 owtmpiov. It was obviously for the sake of this declaration 
that Lk. continued the quotation thus far. That “the salvation 
of God” is to be made known to the whole human race is the 
main theme of his Gospel. 

7-17. John’s Preaching and its Effects. This section gives us 
the burden of his preaching ("EXeyev, imperf.) in accordance (otv) 
with the character which has just been indicated. The herald who 
has to see that hearts are prepared for the Messiah must be stern 
with hypocrites and with hardened sinners, because the impenitent 
cannot escape punishment (7-9); must supply different treatment 
for different classes (10-14; comp. ver. 5); and must declare the 
certainty of his Master’s coming and of its consequences (15-17). 

7. “EXeyev ov. ‘He used to say, therefore”: being the pre- 
dicted Forerunner, his utterances were of this character. We need 
not regard this as a report of what was said on any one occasion, 
but as a summary of what he was in the habit of saying during his 
ministry to the multitudes who came out of the towns and villages 
(éxzropevopévors) into the wilderness to hear the Prophet and gain 
something from him. Mt. (iil. 7) represents this severe rebuke as 
addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees; which confirms the 
view that Lk. is here giving us the substance of the preaching 
rather than what John said on some particular day. What he 
said to some was also said to all; and as the salvation offered_was 
universal, so also was the sin. This is thoroughly characteristic of Lk. 

amticOyvar. As a substitute for repentance, or as some magical 
rite, which would confer a benefit on them independently of their 
moral condition. ‘Their desire for his baptism showed their belief 
in him as a Prophet; otherwise the baptism would have been 
valueless (Jn. i. 25; comp. Zech. xiii. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 25). Hence 
the indignation of John’s disciples when they heard of Jesus 
baptizing, a rite which they regarded as their master’s prerogative 
(Jn. iii. 26). The title 6 Bartiorys or 6 Barrtifwy shows that his 
baptism was regarded as something exceptional and not an ordinary 
purification (Jos. Avz. xviil. 5. 2). Its exceptional character con- 
sisted in (1) its application to the whole nation, which had become 
polluted ; (2) its being a preparation for the more perfect baptism 
of the Messiah. It is only when baptism is administered by im- 
mersion that its full significance is seen. 


Pas is intensive from Bamrw, like Barrio from BadXo : Barrw, 1 
dip”; Bawri{w, ‘I immerse.” Tevyijuara is “‘ offspring ” of animals or men 
(Ecclus. x. 18) ; ; “‘fruits” of the earth or of plants (Deut. xxvii, 4, II, 18, 42, 
5; Mt. xxvi. 29; Mk. xiv. 25; Lk. xxii. 18); “‘ rewards” of righteousness 
(Hos. x. 12; 2 Cor. ix. I0). 


- 


III. 7,8.) PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 8g 


Tevyypata éxisvev. Genimina (Vulg.) or generatio (b ff2l1qr) or 
progenies (acdef) viferarum. In Mt. this is addressed to the 
Pharisees, first by John and afterwards by Jesus (iii. 7, xii. 34, 
Xxili. 33). It indicates another parentage than that of Abraham 
(Jn. viii. 44), and is perhaps purposely used in opposition to their 
trust in their descent: comp. Aesch. Cho. 249; Soph. Azz. 531. 
John’s metaphors, like those of the prophecy (ver. 5), are from the 
wilderness ;—vipers, stones, and barren trees. It is from this stern, 
but fresh and undesecrated region, and not from the “ Holy,” but 
polluted City, that the regenerating movement proceeds ([Is. xli. 
18). These serpent-like characters are the oxod:dé that must be 
made straight. Comp. Ps. lviii. 4, cxl. 3. 

iméderéev. “Suggested” by showing to eye or ear: vi. 47, 
xil. 5; Acts ix. 16, xx. 35; elsewhere in N.T. only Mt. iii. 7. 

THs pedovons épyijs. It is possible that this refers primarily to 
the national judgments involved in the destruction of Jerusalem 
and the banishment of the Jews (xxi. 23; 1 Mac. i. 64); but the 
penalties to be inflicted at the last day are probably included 
(Rom. i. 18, ii. 5, 8, iii. 5, v. 9). The Jews believed that the judg- 
ments of God, especially in connexion with the coming of the 
Messiah, as threatened by the Prophets (Joel ii. 31; Mal. iii. 2, 
iv. 1; Is. xiii. 9), were to be executed on the Heathen. The Baptist 
proclaims that there is no such distinction. Salvation is for all 
who prepare their hearts to receive the Messiah; judgment, for all 
who harden their hearts and reject Him. Birth is of no‘avail. 

8. woujoate otv kaptods dgious tT. p. “If you desire to escape 
this wrath and to welcome the Messiah (ovv), repent, and act az 
once (aor. imperat.) as those who repent.” Comp. xx. 24; Acts 
iil. 4, Vil. 33, 1X. II, XVi. 9, xxi. 39, xxil. 13; and see Win. xliii. 3. a, 
p- 393. Mt. has xapzév (iii. 8), which treats the series of acts as a 
collective result. Comp. S. Paul’s summary of his own preaching, 
esp. déia THs petavolas épya mpaccovras (Acts xxvi. 20). 


It was a Rabbinical saying, “If Israel would repent only one day, the 
Son of David would come forthwith” ; and again, ‘‘If Israel would observe 
only one sabbath according to the ordinance, forthwith would the Son of 
David come” ; and, “‘ All the stages are passed, and all depends solely on 
repentance and good works.” 

The phrase rovety kapmdv is not necessarily a Hebraism (Gen. i. 11, 12): 
w occurs Arist. De Plant. i. 4, p. 819, ii. 10, p. 829. Comp. Jas. iii. 12; 
Mk. iv. 32. 


pa) &p§no8e. “ Do not even begin to have this thought in your 
minds.” Ommnem excusationis etiam conatum precidit {Beng.). If 
there are any passages in which apxojaz with an infin. is a mere 
periphrasis for the simple verb (xx. 9), this is not one of them. 
See Win. Ixv. 7. d, p. 767; Grim-Thay. p. 79; Fritzsche on Mt. 
XVI. 21, Pp. 539.—Neéyew €v éautois. “To say within yourselves” 


go THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE  |III. 8-11 


rather than “among yourselves.” Comp. vii. 49 and Acyere ev rats 
kapdiats tuav (Ps. iv. 5). For the perennial boast about their 
descent from Abraham comp. Jn. viii. 33, 53; Jas. ii. 21; 2 Esdr. 
vi. 56-58 ; Jos. Anz. iii. 5. 3; B./. v. 9. 4; Wetst. on Mt. iii. 9. 

éx tOv AiQwy toUTwy. There is a play upon words betwee2 
“children” (4anim) and “stones” (abanim). It was God who 
made Abraham to be the rock whence the Jews were hewn (Is. 
li. 1, 2); and out of the most unpromising material He can make 
genuine children of Abraham (Rom. iv., ix. 6, 7, xi. 13-24; Gal. 
iv. 21-31). The verb éyetpat is applicable to both stones and 
children. 

9. 78. “Although you do not at all expect it.” The image 
of the axe is in harmony with that of the fruits (ver. 8). In the 
East trees are valued mainly for their fruit; and trees which pro- 
duce none are usually cut down. ‘And even now also the axe is 
laid unto the root.” 


The mpés after xetrat may be explained either, ‘‘is brought to the root 
and lies there”; or, ‘‘lies directed towards the root.” In either case the 
meaning is that judgment is not only inevitable, but will come speedily: 
hence the presents, é€xxémtetat and BadXetar. 

The 6é «al (in Mt. simply 6é) is Lk.’s favourite method of giving emphasis ; 
ver. 12, ii. 4, iv. 41, Vv. 10, 36, ix. 61, x. 32, xi. 18, xi) 54 ,57sixtvenles 
Xvi. I, 22, xvili. 9, xix. 19, xx. 12. For mw with a participle, expressing a 
reason or condition, comp. ii. 45, vii. 30, xi. 24, xii. 47, xxiv. 23; Acts xi. 26, 
Xvii. 6, xxi. 34, Xxvil. 7; and see Win. lv. 5 (8), p. 607. For eéxxémreuw, ‘‘to 
cut off,” of felling trees, comp. xiii. 7, 9; Hdt. ix. 97. 1. See notes on 
vi. 43. 


10-14. John’s Different Treatment of Different Classes. Peculiar 
to Lk., but probably from the same source as the preceding verses. 
It shows that, in levelling the mountains and raising the valleys, 
etc. (ver. 5), he did not insist upon any extraordinary penances or 
“counsels of perfection.” Each class is to forsake its besetting 
sin, and all are to do their duty to their neighbour. The stern 
warnings of the Baptist made the rulers leave in disgust without 
seeking baptism at his hands (vii. 30; Mt. xxi. 25); but they made 
the multitude anxious to comply with the conditions for avoiding 
the threatened judgment. 

10. érypdétwy. “Continually put this question.” The notion 
of vepeti‘ion comes from the imperf. and not, as in éaurety (xvi. 3, 
Xvili. 35), from the ém/, which in éepwrdy indicates the direction of 
the inquiry ; Plato, Soph. 249 E, 250. Comp. émedd0y in iv. 17. 

Ti odv trowjowpev ; “ What then, if the severe things which thou 
sayest are true, must we do?” For the conjunctivus deliberativus 
comp. xxiii. 31; Mt. xxvi. 54; Mk. xii. 14; Jn. xii. 27; and see 
Win. xli. 4. b, p. 356; Matth. 515. 2; Arnold’s Madvig, p. 99; 
Green, p. 150. 

11. SUo xitévas. The x:tév was the under and less necessary 


III. 11-13.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 9! 


garment, distinguished from the upper and almost indispensable 
iudtiov ; vi. 29; Acts ix. 39; Mt. v. 40; Jn. xix. 23. When two of 
these xur@ves were worn at once, the under one or shirt would be the 
Hebrew cetoneth, the upper would be the Hebrew mez/, which was 
longer than the ce¢onetz. It was common for travellers to wear two 
(Jos. Azz. xvii. 5. 7); but Christ forbade the disciples to do so 
(ix. 3; Mt. x. 10). It is not implied here that the two are being 
worn simultaneously. See Trench, Syz. 1.; Conder, Handb. of B. 
p. 195; D.B.’ art. “Dress”; Schaffs Herzog, art. “Clothing and 
Ornaments of the Hebrews.” If the owner of two shirts is to “give 
a share” (petadétw), he will give one shirt. Comp. Rom. i. 11, 
xil. 8; and contrast Peter’s reply to the same question Acts ii. 37, 
38. With regard to Bpwyata, nothing is said or implied about 
having superfluity or abundance. He who has any food is to 
share it with the starving. Comp. 1 Thes. ii. 8. 

This verse is one of those cited to support the view that Lk. is Ebionite in 
his sympathies, a view maintained uncompromisingly by Renan (Les Evangiies, 
ch. xili.; V. de_/. chs. x., xi.), and by Campbell (Crztzcal Studies in St. Luke, 
p- 193). For the answer see Bishop Alexander (Leading Jdeas of the Gospel, 
p- 170). Here it is to be noticed that it is Mt. and Mk. who record, while Lk. 
omits, the poor clothing and poor food of the Baptist himself; and that it is Mt. 


who represents his sternest words as being addressed to the wealthy Pharisees 
and Sadducees, while Lk. directs them against the multitudes generally. 


12. teXGvar. From réAn (Mt. xvii. 25; Rom. xiii. 7) and 
avéopar; so that etymologically teXAOvac = pudblicani, “those who 
bought or farmed the taxes” under the Roman government. But 
in usage teA@var = fortitores, “those who collected the taxes” for 
the pudlicani. This usage is common elsewhere, and invariable in 
N.T. Sometimes, and perhaps often, there was an intermediate 
agent between the teA@vat and the pudlicant, e.g. apxireAwvys OF 
magister (xix. 2). 


These ‘‘ tax-collectors” were detested everywhere, because of their oppres- 
siveness and fraud, and were classed with the vilest of mankind: povxol Kal 
mopvoBockol kal TeAOvat kal Kddakes Kal cuxopdyTat, Kal ToLodTos buthos TOv mavTa 
kukévTwv ev TH Bly (Lucian. Wecyomant. xi.; comp. Aristoph. Zguzt. 248 ; 
Theophr. Chavac. vi.; Grotius, 27 /oco; Wetst. on Mt. v. 46). The Jews especi- 
ally abhorred them as bloodsuckers for a heathen conqueror. For a Jew to 
enter such a service was the most utter degradation. He was excommunicated, 
and his whole family was regarded as disgraced. But the Romans allowed the 
Herods to retain some powers of taxation; and therefore not all tax-collectors 
in Palestine were in the service of Rome. Yet the characteristic faults of 
the profession prevailed, whether the money was collected in the name of Czesar 
or of Herod ; and what these were is indicated by the Baptist’s answer. See 
Lightfoot, Ogera, i. pp. 324, 325; Herzog, PREZ." art. Zo//; Edersh. LZ. & 7. i. 
Pp. 515. 

18. Avddoxahe. Publicani majore ceteris reverentia utuntur 
(Beng.). 


a\éov wapd. For wapd after comparatives comp. Heb. i. 4, iii. 3, ix. 23, 


g2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ III. 13, 14, 


xi. 4, xii. 24; Hdt. vii. 103. 6; Thuc. i. 23. 4, iv. 6. 1. The effect is to 
intensify the notion of excess: so also drép, xvi. 8; Heb. iv. 12. 


76 Statetaypévov. “That which stands prescribed” (perf.) ; 
a favourite word with Lk.: viii. 55; xvii. 9, 10; Acts vii. 44, xviii. 2, 
XX. 13, XXlll. 31, xxiv. 23. Comp. disfonere, verordnen. It is from 
the general meaning of “transacting business” that mpdéocew 
acquires the special sense of “exacting tribute, extorting money”: 
comp. xix. 23. This use is found from Herodotus onwards: Hdt. 
ili. 58. 4; Aisch. Cho. 311; Pers. 476; Eum. 624; Xen. Anab. 
vil. 6. 17: Comp. mpdktwp, ciompdocey, éxrpdooev, and many 
illustrations in Wetst. Agere is similarly used: publicum quadra- 
gesime in Asia egit (Suet. Vesp. i.); but what follows is of interest 
as showing how rare an honourable pudblicanus was: manebanique 
imagines in civitatibus et posite sub hoc titulo KAAQS, TEAQNH- 
SANTI. This is said of Sabinus, father of Vespasian. After farm- 
ing the guvadragesima tax in Asia he was a money-lender among 
the Helvetii. It is to be noticed that the Baptist does not con- 
demn the calling of a tax-collector as unlawful for a Jew. He 
assumes that these reAdva will continue to act as such. 

14. otpateucpevor. ‘Men on service, on military duty”; mz/i- 
tantes rather than milites (Vulg.). In 2 Tim. ii. 4, ovdels otparevo- 
pevos is rightly rendered emo militans. Who these “men on 
service” were cannot be determined ; but they were Jewish soldiers 
and not Roman, and not on service in the war between Antipas and 
his father-in-law Aretas about the former’s repudiation of the latter’s 
daughter in order to make room for Herodias. That war took 
place after the Baptist’s death (Jos. Am¢. xviii. 5. 2), two or three 
years later than this, and probably a.p. 32 (Lewin, Fastz Sacri, 
1171, 1412). These orparevouevoe were possibly gendarmerie, 
soldiers acting as police, perhaps in support of the tax-collectors. 
Such persons, as some modern nations know to their cost, have 
great opportunities for bullying and delation. By their cal mets 
they seem to connect themselves with the teAdvat, either as know- 
ing that they also were unpopular, or as expecting a similar answer 
from John. 

Mndéva Siaceionte. Like concutio, S:aceiw is used of intimida- 
tion, especially of intimidating to extort money (3 Mac. vil. 21). 
Eusebius uses it of the extortions of Paul of Samosata (2 £. 
vii. 30. 7); where, however, the true reading may be ékoefe. In 
this sense oeéw also is used (Aristoph. Zguit. 840; Pax, 639); and 
it is interesting to see that Antipho couples cefw with ovxopavrd. 
®iroxparys obroat érépous tav trevOeivwr Ecere kat €ouxopdvret (Oral. 
vi. p. 146, 1. 22).1 This last passage, combined with the verse 

1In the Passo S. Perpetue, iii., the martyr suffers much orpariwrav cuxogay- 


rlats mdelorats, and this is represented in the Latin by concussures militum. 
Comp. Tert. De Fuga in Pers. xii., xiii. 


III. 14, 15.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 93 


before us, renders it probable that ovxod¢dvrns, a “ fig-shower,” is 
not one who gives information to the police about the exportation 
of figs, but one who shows figs by shaking the tree ; ze. who makes 
the rich yield money by intimidating them. Nowhere is ovko- 
gavrys found in the sense of “informer,” nor yet of ‘ sycophant.” 
It always denotes a “false accuser,” especially with a view to 
obtaining money ; Arist. Ach. 559, 825, 828. Hatch quotes from 
Brunet de Presle, /Votices et textes du Musée du Louvre, a \etter of 
B.C. 145 from Dioscorides, a chief officer of finance, to his sub- 
ordinate Dorion: zepi d& Stacercpav Kai wapadedv eviwy dé Kal 
cukopayteicbar mpoadeponevwv Bovdopcha spas py duadavOaveu, 
x.7.A., “in the matter of fictitious legal proceedings and plunder- 
ings, some persons being, moreover, alleged to be even made the 
victims of false accusations,” etc. (B77. Grk. p. 91). Comp. Lev. 
xix. 11; Job xxiv. 9. Hesychius explains cuxofdyrys as wevdo- 
KaTiyopos. 

dpwviors. From dor, “cooked food” to be eaten with bread, 
and @véouat, “I buy”: hence “rations, allowance, pay” of a 
soldier; 1 Cor. ix. 7; 1 Mac. iii. 28, xiv. 32; 1 Esdr. iv. 56; and 
freq. in Polybius. John does not tell these men on service that 
theirs is an unlawful calling. Nor did the early Christians con- 
demn the life of a soldier: see quotations in Grotius and J. B. 
Mozley, University Sermons, Serm. v. 

15-17. The certainty of the Messiah’s Coming and the Conse- 
quences of the Coming. Mt. iii. r1, 12. The explanatory open- 
ing (ver. 15) is peculiar to Lk. The substance of ver. 16 is common 
to all three; but here Lk. inserts the characteristic taéov.v. In 
ver. 17 he and Mt. are together, while Mk. is silent. Lk. shows 
more clearly than the other two how intense was the excitement 
which the Baptist’s preaching caused. 

15. MpocSoxavros. What were they expecting? The result of all 
this strange preaching, and especially the Messianic judgment. 
Would it be put in execution by John himself? For this absolute 
use of zpoodoxdw comp. Acts xxvil. 33. Excepting Mt. xi. 13, 
xxiv. 50, 2 Pet. iil. 12-14, the verb is peculiar to Lk. (i. 21, vil. 
19, 20, Vili. 40, xii. 46; Acts iii. 5, etc.) 


The Vulg. here has the strange rendering exzstzmante ; although in i. 21, 
vii. 19, 20, viii. 40 mpoodoxdw is rendered exfecto, and in xii. 46 sfero. Cod. 
Brix. has sfevante here. See on xix. 43 and xxi. 23, 25 for other slips in 
Jerome’s work. Here d has an attempt to reproduce the gen. abs. in Latin: 
et cogitantium omnium. Comp. ix. 43, XIX. II, xxi. 5, xxiv. 36, 4I. 


py mote aités. “If haply he himself were the Christ.” Their 
thinking this possible, although “ John did no sign,” and had none 
of the insignia of royalty, not even descent from David, is remark- 
able. Von ita crassam adhuc ideam de Christo habebant, nam 


94 THE GOSPEL ACCORDIN(; TO S. LUKE [Ii1. 15, 16 


Johannes nil splendoris externt habebat et tamen talia de eo cogita- 
dant (Beng.). That this question had been raised is shown by 
Jn. i. 20. The Baptist would not have declared “I am not the 
Christ,” unless he had been asked whether he was the Messiah, or 
had heard the people discussing the point. 


For the constr. comp. BA more din avrois 6 Oeds werdvoray (2 Tim. ii. 25). 
The opt. in indirect questions is freq. in Lk. both without dy (i. 29, viii. 9, 
Acts xvii. 11, xxi. 33) and also with dy (i. 62, vi. 11, xv. 26; Acts v. 24, 
x. 17). 


16. mao. Showing how universal the excitement on this point 
was. Neither Mt. (iii. 11) nor Mk. (i. 7) has the taouy of which 
Luke is so fond: comp. vi 30, Vii. 35, 1x. 43, Xi. 4, Xil. Io. 


The aor. mid. dmexplvyaro is rare in N.T. (xxiii. 9; Acts iii. 12; Mt. 
Xxvil. 12; Mk. xiv. 61; Jn. v. 17, 19); also in LXX (Judg. v. 29; 1 Kings 
ii. 1; 1 Chron. x. 13; Ezek. ix. 11). In bibl. Grk. the pass. forms prevail : 
see small print on i. 19. 


"Ey® péev dSart. Both with emphasis: “ Z with water.” 

5 ioxupétepos. Valebat Johannes, sed Christus multo plus (Beng.). 
The art. marks him as one who ought to be well known. 

Aécat tov indvta Tv Grodnpdtwv. More graphic than Mt.’s 7a 
tod. Baoracat, but less so than Mk.’s xias Adoat Tov iw. Tov b70d. 
avtov. Both AV. and RV. mark the difference between trdednpa, 
“that which is bound under” the foot, and cavddAuov, dim. of 
cavoadov, by rendering the former “shoe” (x. 4, xv. 22, Xxil. 35; 
Acts vii. 33, xill. 25) and the other “sandal” (Mt. vi. 9; Acts 
xii. 8). The Vulg. has caleamenta for trodjpara, and sandalia or 
calige for cavdd\va. In LXX the two words seem to be used 
indiscriminately (Josh. ix. 5, 13); but tod. is much the more 
common, and it is doubtful whether the Jews before the Captivity 
wore shoes or manalim (Deut. XXxlli. 25) as distinct from sandals. 
Comp. of inavres tv trodypdrwv atrdv (Is. v. 27). To unfasten 
shoes or sandals, when a man returned home, or to bring them to 
him when he went out, was the office of a slave (See Wetst. on Mt. 
iii. 11). John is not worthy to be the bond-servant of the Christ. 
The adrod is not so entirely redundant as in some other passages : 
‘whose latchet of his shoes.” } 

attés. In emphatic contrast to the speaker. 

év mvedpart dyiv., See on i, 15. That the & with mvedjpate 
dyiw and its absence from #Sar: marks a distinction of any great 
moment, either here or Acts i. 5, must be doubted; for in Mt. 
iii. 11 oth expressions have the éy, and in Mk. i. 8 neither. The 
simple dat. marks the instrument or matter wz which the baptism 


1Comp. Mk. vii. 25; 1 Pet. ii. 24; Rev. iii. 8, vii. 2, 9, xiii. 8, xx. 8. 
Such pleonasms are Hebraistic, and are specially common in LXX (Gen. i. 113 
Exod. xxxv. 29, etc.); Win. xxii. 4 (b), p. 184. 


III. 16,17} PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 95 


is effected ; the év marks the element zz which it takes place (Jn. 
i 3D): 

$ a mupt. This remarkable addition is wanting in Mk. Various 
explanations of it are suggested. (1) That the jiery tongues at 
Pentecost are meant, is improbable. Were any of those who 
received the Spirit at Pentecost among the Baptist’s hearers on 
this occasion? Moreover, in Acts i. 5 kat wvpi is not added. 
‘2) That it distinguishes two baptisms, the penitent with the 
Spirit, and the impenitent with Zeval fire, is very improbable. 
The same persons (tas) are to be baptized with the Spirit and 
with fire. In ver. 17 the good and the bad are separated, but not 
here. This sentence must not be made parallel to what follows, 
for the winnowing-shovel is not baptism. (3) More probably the 
mupt refers to the illuminating, kindling, and purifying power of 
the grace given by the Messiah’s baptism. Sfiritus sanctus, quo 
Christus baptizat, igneam wim habet: atgue ea vis ignea etiam 
conspicua fuit oculis honinum (Beng.): comp. Mal. ili. 2. (4) Or, 
the jiery trials which await the disciple who accepts Christ’s 
baptism may be meant: comp. xii. 50; Mk. x. 38, 39. The 
passage is one of many, the exact meaning of which must remain 
doubtful ; but the purifying of the believer rather than the punish- 
ment of the unbeliever seems to be intended. 

17. mrdov. The “winnowing-shovel” (fala lignea; Vulg. 
ventilabrum), with which the threshed corn was thrown up into 
the wind (rriw=“‘spit”).! This is a further description of the 
Messiah,—He whose zrvov is ready for use. Note the impressive 
repetition of atrod after 77) xewpt, tiv GAwva, and thy drobjKnv.? 

thy G&dwva. The threshing-floor itself, and not its contents 
It is by removing the contents—corn to the barn, and refuse to 
the fire—that the floor is thoroughly cleansed. Christ’s threshing- 
floor is the world; or, in a more restricted sense, the Holy Land. 
See Meyer on Mt. iii. 12. 

éoBéor». Comp. Mk. ix. 43; Lev. vi. 12, 13; Is. xxxiv. 8-10, 
Ixvi. 24; Jer. vii. 20; Ezek. xx. 47, 48. In Homer it is a freq. 
epithet of yéAws, «A€os, Boy, pevos, and once of Padé (//. xvi. 123). 
As an epithet of zip it is opposed to padaxdy and paxpdv. See 


1 The wooden shovel, Jala lignea (Cato, R. FR. vie 45. 151), ventilabrum 
(Varro, 2. #. i. 52), seems to have been more primitive than the vazzus, which 
was a basket, shaped -like the blade of a large shovel. The mrvov was a shovel 
rather than a basket. In Tertullian (Prescrzp. ili.) palam zm manu portat ad 
purgandam aream suam is probably the true reading: but some MSS. have 
ventilabrum for palan. 

2 The form écaxaOGpat is worth noting: in later Greek éxd@dpa for éxaOnpa 
is not uncommon. Mt. here has dvaxa@apte?, but classical writers prefer d.a- 
Kadatpew to diaxaaplfew.—For the details of Oriental threshing see Herzog, 
PRE.? art. Ackerbau; D.B.* art. “Agriculture.” For &xvpa comp. Job 
xxi, 18, and Hdt. iv. 72. 2; the sing. is less common (Jer. xxiii. 28) 


96 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IIL 17-19, 


Heinichen on Eus. & £. vi. 41. 15 and viii. 12.1. It is therefore 
a fierce fire which cannot be extinguished, rather than ar endless 
fire that will never go out, that seems to be indicated: and this is 
just such a fire as 76 a&xvpov (the refuse left after threshing and 
winnowing) would make. But doBeoros is sometimes used of a 
fire that never goes out, as that of Apollo at Delphi or of Vesta at 
Rome (Dion. Hal. cxciv. 8). For xataxaiew comp. Mt. xiii. 30, 
40; also Ex. iil. 2, where it is distinguished from xaéew ; it implies 
utter consumption. ; 

18-20. § Explanation of the Abrupt Termination of the 
Baptist’s Ministry. This is given here by anticipation in order 
to complete the narrative. Comp. the conclusions to previous 
narratives: i. 66, 80, il. 40, 52. 

18. ModAa péev o8y Kat érepa. The comprehensive woAda kai 
érepa confirms the view taken above (ver. 7) that this narrative 
(7-18) gives a summary of John’s teaching rather than a report of 
what was said on any one occasion. The érepa means “of a 
different kind” (Gal. i. 6, 7), and intimates that the preaching of 
the Baptist was not always of the character just indicated. 


The cases in which yév ofy occurs must be distinguished. 1. Where, as 
here, év is followed by a corresponding 6é, and we have nothing more than 
the distributive uévy . . . 6&. . . combined with ofr (Acts viii. 4, 25, xi. 19, 
xii. 5, xiv, 3, XV. 3, 30, etc.). 2. Where no 6é follows, and péy confirms 
what is said, while o#y marks an inference or transition, guzdem zgztur (Acts 
i. 6, li. 41, V. 41, xiii, 4, xvii. 30; Heb. vii. 11, viii. 4, etc.). Win. liii. 8, a, 
Pp. 556. 


Tapakahav ednyyedtlero . . . édeyxdpevos. These words give 
the three chief functions of the Baptist: to exhort all, to preach 
good tidings to the penitent, to reprove the impenitent. It is 
quite unnecessary to take tov Aadv with zapaxaddv, and the order 
of the words is against such a combination. 


In late Greek the acc. of the Jerson to whom the announcement is made is 
freq. after evayyedlferOar (Acts xiv. 15, xvi. 10; Gal. i. 9; I Pet. i. 123 
comp. Acts viii. 25, 40, xiv. 21): and hence in the pass. we have mrwyxol 
evaryyeAlfovrat. The acc. of the message announced is also common (viii. 1; 
Acts v. 42, vill. 4, 12, x. 36, xi. 20). Where both person and message are 
combined, the person addressed is in the dat. (i. 19, ii. 10, iv. 43; Acts 
viii. 35; comp. Lk. iv. 18; Acts xvii. 18; Rom. i. 15, etc.): but in Acts 
xiii, 32 we have double acc. Here the Lat. texts vary between evangelszabat 
populum (Cod. Am.) and evang. populo (Cod. Brix.). 


19. ‘HpwJSys. Antipas, as in ver. 1. The insertion of the 
name ®.Airrov after yuvatkés comes from Mk. and Mt. (ACK X 
and some versions). This Philip must be carefully distinguished 
from the tetrarch Philip, with whom Jerome confuses him. He 
was the son of Mariamne, on account of whose treachery he had 
been disinherited by Herod the Great; and he lived as a private 


IIL. 19, 20.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 97 


individual at Jerusalem (Jos. B. /. i. 30. 7). Josephus calls both 
Antipas and also this Philip simply “Herod” (Azz. xviii. 5. 4). 
Herodias became the evil genius of the man who seduced her from 
his brother. It was her ambition which brought about the down- 
fall of Antipas. Lk. alone tells us that John rebuked Antipas for 
his wicked life (kal mepi mdvtwv) as well as for his incestuous 
marriage. Obviously éAeyxépevos means “rebuked, reproved” 
(1 Tim. v. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 2), and not “convicted” or “ convinced” 
(Jn. viii. 46, xvi. 8). In the former sense éAéyxev is stronger 
than éityudv: see Trench, Syz. iv. 


Once more (see on ver. I) we have a remarkable rendering in d: Herodes 
autem quaterducatus cum argueretur ab eo, etc. 

Note the characteristic and idiomatic attraction (rdytwy v), and comp. 
ii. 20, v. 9, ix. 43, xii. 46, xv. 16, xix. 37, xxiv. 25; Acts iii. 21, x. 39, 
xili. 39, XXii. 10, xxvi, 2. 

20. mpoodOykev kal todto émt maow, katékdewev, k.T.A. “He 
added this also on the top of all—he shut up John in prison” ; 
i.e. he added this to all the other zovypa of which he had been 

uilty. 

é Tkephas in the famous passage which confirms and supple- 
ments the Gospel narrative respecting the Baptist (Azz. xviii. 5. 2), 
says that Antipas put him in prison because of his immense 
influence with the people. ‘They seemed to be ready to do what- 
ever he told them; and he might tell them to revolt. This may 
easily have been an additional reason for imprisoning him: it is no 
contradiction of the Evangelists. What Josephus states is what 
Antipas publicly alleged as his reason for arresting John: of course 
he would not give his private reasons. The prison in which the 
Baptist was confined was in the fortress of Macheerus at the N.E. 
corner of the Dead Sea. Seetzen discovered the site in 1807 
above the valley of the Zerka, and dungeons can still be traced 
among the ruins. ‘Tristram visited it in 1872 (Déscoveries on the 
East Side of the Dead Sea, ch. xiv.). It was hither that the 
daughter of Aretas fled on her way back to her father, when she 
discovered that Antipas meant to discard her for Herodias, 
Macherus was then in her father’s dominions; but Antipas 
probably seized it immediately afterwards (Jos. Azz. xviii. 5. 1, 2). 


The expression mpocé@nxev Totro, xaréx\ecey must not be confounded 
with the Hebraisms mpocé@ero méupar (xx. II, 12), mpooéero ovddaBeiv 
(Acts xii. 3). It is true that in LXX the act. as well as the mid. is used in 
this manner: mpooé@yxe texety (Gen. iv. 2); mpocéOnxe adjoa (Gen. 
xviii. 29): see also Exod. x. 28; Deut. iii. 26; and for the mid. Exod. 
xiv. 13. But in this Hebraistic use of mpoorl@nu for ‘*go on and do” the 
second verb is always in the infin. (Win. liv. 5, p. 588). Here there is no 
Hebraism, and therefore no sign that Lk. is using an Aramaic source. 

Karaxnelew is classical, but occurs in N.T. only here and Acts xxvi. 103 
fn both cases of imprisoning. It is freq. in medical] writers, and Galen uses 


7 


98 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [III. 20, 21 


it of imprisonment (Hobart, A/ed. Lang. of Lk. pp. 66, 67). Mt. xiv. 3 we 
have dmé@ero, and Mk. vi. 17, €dy0ev, of Herod’s putting John into prison. 


21, 22. Jesus is baptized by John.—lIt is remarkable, that 
although the careers of the Forerunner and of the Messiah are 
so closely connected, and so similar as regards prediction of birth 
retirement, ministry, and early end, yet, so far as we know, they 
come into actual contact only at one brief period, when the 
Forerunner baptized the Christ. Once some of John’s disciples 
raised the question of fasting, and Jesus answered it (v. 33; Mt 
ix. 14), and once John sent some of his disciples to Jesus te 
question Him as to His Messiahship (vil. 19-23; Mt. xi. 2-19) ; 
but there is no meeting between Christ and the Baptist. Lk., 
having completed his brief account of the Forerunner and his 
work, begins his main subject, viz. the Messiah and His work. 
This involves a return to the point at which the Forerunner met 
the Messiah, and performed on Him the rite which prepared Him 
for His work, by publicly uniting Him with the people whom He 
came to save, and proclaiming Him before them. 

21. ev ta BawticOjvar Gmavta tov Aadv. “After all the people 
had been baptized”; cum taptizatus esset omnis populus (Cod. 
Brix.) : not, “‘zvz/e they were be‘ng baptized”; cum baptizaretur 
(Cod. Am.). The latter would be év 76 with the fves. infin. 


Both constructions are very freq. in Lk. Contrast the aorists in ii, 27, 
ix. 36, xi. 37, xiv. I, xix. 15, xxiv. 30, Acts xi. 15 with the presents in v. I, 
12, vili. 5, 42, ix. 18, 29, 33, 51, X- 35, 38, xi. I. 27, xvii. I, 14, xxiv. 4, 


15, 51; Acts viii. 6, xix. I. . is also fond of the stronger form &7as, 
which is rare in N.T. outside his writings. Readings are often confused, but 
daas is well attested v. 26, viii. 37, ix. 15, xix. 37, 48, xxiii. 1; Acts i ii. 44, 


iv. 31, Ve 16, x. 8, xis 10, xvie 3, 28, xxv. 24; and may be right in other 
places. 


That there were great multitudes present when John baptized 
the Christ is not stated; nor is it probable. Had Lk. written ev 
T® BarileoGa., this would have implied the presence of many other 
candidates for baptism ; but it was not until “after every one of 
the people had been baptized” that the baptism of Jesus took 
place. Possibly Jesus waited until He could be alone with John. 
In any case, those who had long been waiting for their turn would 
go home soon after they had accomplished their purpose. It was 
some time before this that John said to the people, “‘ He that cometh 
after me... is standing in the midst of you, and ye know Him 
not” (Jn. i. 26). They could hardly have been so ignorant of Him, 
if large multitudes had been present when John baptized Him. 

kal ‘Inood BamticSévros. It is remarkable that this, which seems 
to us to be the main fact, should be expressed thus incidentally by 
a participle. It is as if the baptism of all the people were regarded 
as carrying with it the baptism of Jesus almost as a necessary com- 


II. 21, 22.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 99 


plement: ‘After they had been baptized, and when He had been 
baptized and was praying.” But perhaps the purpose of Lk. is to 
narrate the baptism, not so much for its own sake as an instance of 
Christ’s conformity to what was required of the people, as for the 
sake of the Divine recognition and authentication which Jesus then 
received. : 

Jerome has preserved this fragment of the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews: ‘‘ Lo, 
the mother of the Lord and His brethren said to Him, John the Baptist baptizeth 
for remission of sins: let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, 
Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? except perchance 
this very thing which I have said is ignorance” (Adv. Pelag. iii. 1). The 7ractatus 
de Rebaptesmate says that the Pazlé Predicatio represented “‘ Christ, the only 
man who was altogether without fault, both making confession respecting His 
own sin, and driven almost against His will by His mother Mary to accept the 
baptism of John: also that when He was baptized fire was seen on the water, 
which is not written in any Gospel” (xvii.; Hartel’s Cyprzan, ii. p. 90). The 
fire in the water is mentioned in Justin (77y. lxxxviii.), but not as recorded by 
the Apostles ; and also in the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews. 


kat mpogeuxopevouv. Lk. alone mentions this. On his Gospel 
as emphasizing the duty of prayer see Introd. § 6. Mt. and Mk. 
say that Jesus saw the Spirit descending ; Jn. says that the Baptist 
saw it; Lk. that it took place (éyévero) along with the opening of 
the heaven and the coming of the voice. Mk. says simply 76 
mvedtpa; Mt. has zvetua cod; Lk. 1d mvedua 7d dyov. See on 
5. 

The constr. of éyévero with acc. and infin. is on the analogy of the class. 
constr. of ovvé8n: it is freq. in Lk. See note, p. 45. The form dvewy- 
Ojvat is anomalous, as if assimilated to dvepx@a:: comp. Jn. ix. 10, 14; 
Rev. iv. 1, vi. I. 

22. cwopatikw etder Os tepiotepdv. “In a bodily form” is 
peculiar to Lk. Nothing is gained by admitting something visible 
and rejecting the dove. Comp. the symbolical visions of Jehovah 
granted to Moses and other Prophets. We dare not assert that the 
Spirit cannot reveal Himself to human sight, or that in so doing 
He cannot employ the form of a dove or of tongues of fire. The 
tongues were appropriate when the Spirit was given “‘ by measure” 
to many. The dove was appropriate when the Spirit was given 
in His fulness to one. It is not true that the dove was an ancient 
Jewish symbol for the Spirit. In Jewish symbolism the dove is 
Israel. The descent of the Spirit was not, as some Gnostics 
taught, the moment of the Incarnation: it made no change in the 
nature of Christ. But it may have illuminated Him so as to com- 
plete His growing consciousness of His relations to God and to 
man (ii. 52). It served two purposes: (1) to make Him known to 
the Baptist, who thenceforward had Divine authority for making 
Him known to the world (Jn. i. 32, 33); and (2) to mark the offi- 
cial beginning of the ministry, like the anointing of a king. As at 


100 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _ [III. 22. 


the Transfiguration, Christ is miraculously glorified before setting 
out to suffer, a voice from heaven bears witness to Him, and “ the 
goodly fellowship of the Prophets” waits on His glory. 


The phrase dwvhy yevéo Oar is freq. in Lk. (i. 44, ix. 35, 36; Acts ii. 6, 
vii. 31, X. 13, xix. 34). Elsewhere only Mk. i. 11, ix. 7; Jn. xil. 30; Rev. viii. 5. 
Comp. €pxetat pwr}, Jn. xii. 28; c&€pxerar PwvyH, Rev. xvi. 17, xix. 5. 


xu. Responsio ad preces, ver. 21 (Beng.). The 2v shows that the 
voice conveyed a message to the Christ as well as to the Baptist. 
Mk. also has 2% ef: in Mt. iii. 17 we have Otros éorw. Diversitas 
locutionum adhuc etiam utilis est, ne uno modo dictum minus intell- 
gatur (Aug.). In the narrative of the Transfiguration all three have 
Otrés éotuv. 


The reference seems to be to Ps. ii. 7; and here D and other important 
witnesses have Tids wou ef ot, ey ohuepov yeyévynkd oe. Augustine says that 
this was the reading of some MSS., ‘‘ although it is s¢a¢ed not to be found in the 
more ancient MSS.” (De Cons. Evang. ii. 14: comp. Enchir. ad Laurent. xlix.). 
Justin has it in his accounts of the Baptism (77y. Ixxxviii., ciii.). In Mt. it is 
possible to take 6 dyamnrds with what follows: ‘‘The beloved in whom I am 
well pleased” ; but this is impossible here and in Mk. i. 11, and therefore im- 
probable in Mt. The repetition of the article presents the epithet as a separate 
fact: ‘*Thou art My Son, My beloved one.” Comp. povvos éov dyamnrds 
(Hom. Od. ii. 365). It is remarkable that St. John never uses dyamnros of 
Christ: neither in the Fourth Gospel nor in the Apocalypse does the word occur 
in any connexion. 

evddxynoa. ‘<I am well pleased”: the timeless aorist. Comp. Jn. xiii. 3. 
The verb is an exception to the rule that, except where a verb is compounded 
with a prep., the verbal termination is not retained, but one from a noun of the 
same root is substituted: e.g. dduvaretv, evepyeretv, not ddvvacbat, evepydferOat. 
Comp. kapadoxety and dvo@vicKew, which are similar exceptions, Win. xvi. 5, 

. 125. 

i The voice does not proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, as a legend would prob- 
ably have represented. No such proclamation was needed either by Jesus or 
by the Baptist. The descent of the Spirit had told John that Jesus was the 
Christ (Jn. i. 33). This voice from heaven, as afterwards at the Transfiguration 
(ix. 35), and again shortly before the Passion (Jn. xii. 28), followed closely upon 
Christ’s prayer, and may be regarded as the answer to it. His humanity was 
capable of needing the strength which the heavenly assurance gave. To call 
this voice from heaven the Sath-Xol of the Rabbis, or to treat it as analogous 
to it, is misleading. The Rabbinic Bath-Kol, or ‘‘ Daughter-voice,” is regarded 
as an echo of the voice of God: and the Jews liked to believe that it had been 
granted to them after the gift of prophecy had ceased. The utterances atiri- 
buted to it are in some cases so frivolous or profane, that the more intelligent 
Rabbis denounced it as a superstition. 

It has been pointed out that Lk. appears to treat the baptism of Jesus by 
John as a matter of course. Mt. tells us that the Baptist at first protested 
against it; and many writers have felt that it requires explanation. Setting 
aside the profane suggestions that Jesus was not sinless, and therefore needed 
“repentance baptism for remission of sins,” or that He was in collusion with 
John, we may note four leading hypotheses. 1. He wished to do honour to 
John. 2. He desired to elicit from John a declaration of His Messiahship. 
3. He thereby gave a solemn sign that He had done with home life, and was 
beginning His public minis‘ry. 4. He thereby consecrated Himself for His 


IIL. 22.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY Io! 


work.—This last seems to be nearest to the truth. The other three would be 
more probable if we were expressly told that multitudes of spectators were 
present ; whereas the reverse seems to be implied. John’s baptism was prepara- 
tory to the kingdom of the Messiah. For everyone else it was a baptism of 
repentance. The Messiah, who needed no repentance, could yet accept the 
preparation. In each case it marked the beginning of a new life. It conse- 
crated the people for the reception of salvation. It consecrated the Christ for 
the bestowing of it (Neander, Z. 7. C. § 42 (5), Eng. tr. p. 68) But besides 
this it was a “‘ fulfilment of righteousness,” a complying with the requirements 
of the Law. Although pure Himself, through His connexion with an unclean 
people He was Levitically unclean. ‘‘ On the principles of O.T. righteousness 
His baptism was required” (Lange, Z. of C. i. p. 355). 

In the Fathers and liturgies we find the thought that by being baptized Him- 
self Jesus elevated an external rite into a sacrament, and consecrated the element 
of water for perpetual use. Aafgtizatus est ergo Dominus non mundari volens, 
sed mundare aguas (Ambr. on Lk. iii. 21, 23). ‘“* By the Baptisme of thy wel 
beloved sonne Jesus Christe, thou dydest sanctifie the fludde Jordan, and al other 
waters to this misticall washing away of synne” (First Prayer-Book of Edw. vi. 
1549, Public Baptism) ; which follows the Gregorian address, ‘‘ By the Baptism 
of Thine Only-begotten Son hast been pleased to sanctify the streams of water” 
(Bright, Amczent Collects, p. 161). 

There is no contradiction between John’s ‘‘Comest Thou to me?” (Mt. 
iii. 14) and “‘I knew Him not” (Jn. i. 31, 33). Asa Prophet John recognized 
the sinlessness of Jesus, just as Elisha recognized the avarice and untruthfulness 
of Gehazi, or the treachery and cruelty of Hazael (2 Kings v. 26, viii. 10-12) ; 
but until the Spirit descended upon Him, he did not know that He was the 
Messiah (Weiss, Zebex Jesu, I. ii. 9, Eng. tr. i. p. 320), John had three main ; 
functions: to predict the coming of the Messiah ; to prepare the people for it; | 
and to point out the Messiah when He came. When these were accomplished, | 
his work was nearly complete. 


23-38. The Genealogy of Jesus Christ. Comp. Mt. i. 1-17. 
The literature is very abundant: the following are among the prin- 
cipal authorities, from which a selection may be made, and the 
names of other authorities obtained. 

Lord A. Hervey, Zhe Genealogies of our Lord and Saviour, 
Macmillan, 1853; J. B. McClellan, Zhe New Testament of our 
Lord and Saviour, i. pp. 408-422, Macmillan, 1875; W. H. Mill, 
Observations on the Application of Pantheistic Principles to the 
Theory and Historic Criticism of the Gospel, pp. 147-218; D.B.? 
art. “Genealogy”; D. of Chr. Biog. art. “ Africanus”; Schafi’s 
Flerzog, art. “Genealogy”; Commentaries of Mansel (Sfeaker), 
Meyer, Schaff, on Mt. i; of Farrar, Godet, M. R. Riddle, on 
Lk. iii. 


Why does Lk. insert the genealogy here instead of at the beginning of his 
Gospel? It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that this zs the beginning 
of his Gospel, for the first three chapters are only introductory. The use of 
dpxouevos here implies that the Evangelist is now making a fresh start. Two of 
the three introductory chapters are the history of the Forerunner, which Lk. 
completes in the third chapter before beginning his account of the work of the 
Messiah. Not until Jesus has been anointed by the Spirit does the history of 
the Messiah, z.e. the Anointed One, begin ; and His genealogy then becomes of 
importance. Ina similar way the pedigree of Moses is placed, not just before 


102 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [III. 22, 23. 


or just after the account of his birth (Exod. ii. 1, 2), where not even the names 
of his parents are given, but just after his public appearance before Pharaoh as 
the spokesman of Jehovah and the leader of Israel (Exod. vi. 14-27). 

The statement of Julius Africanus, that Herod the Great caused the genealo- 
gies of ancient Jewish families to be destroyed, in order to conceal the defects 
of his own pedigree (Eus. H. Z. i. 7. 13), is of no moment. If he ever gave 
such an order, it would of necessity be very imperfectly executed. Tle rebuild- 
ing of the temple would give him the opportunity of burning the genealogies of 
the priests, which were preserved in the temple archives, but pedigrees in the 
possession of private families would be carefully concealed. Josephus was able 
to give his own genealogy, as he “‘ found it described in the pud/ic records” —éev 
tats Onuoolas déArots dvaryeypayuevnv ( Veta, 1); and he tells us what great care 
was taken to preserve the pedigrees of the priests, not merely in Judzea, but in 
Egypt, and Babylon, and ‘‘ whithersoever our priests are scattered” (AZzon. 
i. 7). It is therefore an empty objection to say that Lk. cou/d not have 
obtained this genealogy from any authentic source, for all such sources had been 
destroyed by Herod. It is clear from Josephus that, if Herod made the attempt, 
he did not succeed in destroying even all public records. Jews are very tena- 
cious of their genealogies ; and a decree to destroy such things would be evaded 
in every possible way. The importance of the evidence of Africanus lies in his 
claim to have obtained information from members of the family, who gloried in 
preserving the memory of their noble extraction; and zz hzs referring both 
pedigrees as a matter of course to Joseph. It is not probable that Joseph was the 
only surviving descendant of David who was known to be such. But it is likely 
enough that all such persons were in humble positions, like Joseph himself, and 
thus escaped the notice and jealousy of Herod. Throughout his reign he took 
no precaution against Davidic claimants; and had he been told that a village 
carpenter was the representative of David’s house, he would possibly have 
treated him as Domitian is said to have treated the grandsons of Judas the 
brother of the Lord—with supercilious indifference (Eus. H. Z. iii. 20). 


23. aités. ‘He Himself,” to whom these miraculous signs 
had reference: comp. i. 22; Mt. fii. 4. The AV. translation of 
the whole clause, aétés fv “Inoods adpxdpevos doel érav tpidKovta, 
“Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age,” is im- 
possible. It is probably due to the influence of Beza: incipiebat 
esse quasi annorum triginta. But Cranmer led the way in this 
error in the Bible of 1539, and the later versions followed. Purvey 
is vague, like the Vulgate: “was bigynnynge as of thritti year,”— 
erat incipiens quasi annorum trigtnta. ‘Tyndale is right: “was 
about thirty yere of age when He beganne”; ze. when He began 
His ministry in the solemn way just recorded. Comp. the use of 
dpédpevos in Acts i. 22. In both cases diddoxew may be under- 
stood, but is not necessary. In Mk. iv. 1 we have the full expres- 
sion, mpéato dSidacxew, which is represented in the parallel, Mt. 
xiii. 1, by éké@y7o. Professor Marshall has shown that ypéaro and 
éxd@nro may be equivalents for one and the same Aramaic verb 
(Expositor, April 1891): see on v. 21. 

It is obvious that this verse renders little help to chronology. 
“ About thirty” may be anything from twenty-eight to thirty-two,— 
to give no wider margin. [It is certain that our era is at least four 
years too late, for it begins with a.u.c. 754. Herod the Great 


III. 23-27.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 103 


died just before the Passover a.U.c. 750, which. is therefore the 
latest year possible for the Nativity. If we reckon the “ fifteenth 
year” of ver. 1 from the death of Augustus, Jesus was probably 
thirty-two at the time of His Baptism. 

dy ulds, ds évopileto, “lwo Tod ‘Het. This is the right punctua- 
tion: ‘being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of 
Heli.” It is altogether unnatural to place the comma aféer “luond 
and not before it: “ being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of 
Heli”; ze. being supposed to be the son of Joseph, but being 
really the grandson of Heli. It is not credible that vids can mean 
both son and grandson in the same sentence. J. Lightfoot pro- 
posed that “Jesus” (viz. vids, not viod) should be understood 
throughout ; ‘‘ Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so 
the son of Heli, and so the son of Matthat,” etc. (Hor. Hed. on 
Lk. iii. 23). But this is not probable: see on rod @cod (ver. 38). 


It is evident from the wording that Lk. is here giving ¢he genealogy of Joseph 
and not of Mary. It would have been quite out of harmony with either Jewish 
ideas or Gentile ideas to derive the birthright of Jesus from His mother. In the 
eye of the law Jesus was the heir of Joseph; and therefore it is Joseph’s descent 
which is of importance. Mary may have been the daughter of Heli; but, if 
she was, Lk. ignores the fact. The difference between the two genealogies was 
from very early times felt to be a difficulty, as is seen from the letter of Julius 
Africanus to Aristides, ¢. A.D. 220 (Eus. A. Z. i. 73 Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii. 
p- 228); and it is probable that so obvious a solution, as that one was the pedi- 
gree of Joseph and the other the pedigree of Mary, would have been very soon 
advocated, if there had been any reason (excepting the difficulty) for adopting 
it. But this solution is not suggested by anyone until Annius of Viterbo pro- 
pounded it, ¢ A.D. 1490. 

The main facts of the two genealogies are these. From Adam to Abraham 
Lk. is alone. From Abraham to David, Lk. and Mt. agree. From David to 
Joseph they differ, excepting in the names of Zorobabel and his father Salathiel. 
The various attempts which have been made at reconciling the divergences, 
although in no case convincingly successful, are yet sufficient to show that recon- 
ciliation is not impossible. If we were in possession of all the facts, we might 
find that both pedigrees are in accordance with them. Neither of them presents 
difficulties which no addition to our knowledge could solve. In addition to the 
authorities named above, the monographs of Hottinger, Surenhusius, and Voss 
may be consulted. 


27. tod ZopoBdBed tod Zatabinr. It is highly improbable that 
these are different persons from the Zerubbabel and the Shealtiel 
of Mt. i. 12. That at the same period of Jewish history there 
should be two fathers bearing the rare name Salathiel or Shealtiel, 
each with a son bearing the rare name Zerubbabel, and that both 
of these unusually-named fathers should come in different ways 
into the genealogy of the Messiah, is scarcely credible, although 
this hypothesis has been adopted by both Hottinger and Voss. 
Zerubbabel (= “ Dispersed in Babylon,” or ‘Begotten in Baby- 
lon”) was head of the tribe of Judah at the time of the return from 
the Babylonish Captivity in the first year of Cyrus; and he was 


104 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IIL 27-38. 


therefore an obvious person to include in the pedigree of the 
Messiah. Hence he was called the /esa or Prince of the Cap- 
tivity. In 1 Chron. iii. 19 he is given as the son of Pedaiah and 
nephew of Shealtiel: and this is probably correct. But he became 
the heir of Shealtiel because the latter had no sons. In Mt. i. 12 
and 1 Chron. iii. 17, Shealtiel is the son of Jechoniah, king of 
Judah; whereas Lk. makes him the son of Neri. Jeconiah is 
called Coniah, Jer. xxii. 24, and Jehoiachin, lii. 31; 2 Kings xxiv. 6; 
2 Chron. xxxvi. 8, 9; and all three names mean “The Lord will 
establish.” From Jer. xxii. 30 we learn that he had no children; 
and therefore the line of David through Solomon became extinct in 
him. The three pedigrees indicate that an heir for the childless 
Jeconiah was found in Shealtiel the son of Neri, who was of the 
house of David ¢hrough Nathan. Thus the junction of the two 
lines of descent in Shealtiel! and Zerubbabel is fully explained. 
Shealtiel was the son of Neri of Nathan’s line, and also the heir of 
Jeconiah of Solomon’s line; and having no sons himself, he had 
his nephew Zerubbabel as adopted son and heir. Rhesa, who 
appears in Lk., but neither in Mt. nor in 1 Chron., is probably not 
a name at all, but a title, which some Jewish copyist mistook for a 
name. ‘“Zerubbabel Rhesa,” or ‘‘Zerubbabel the Prince,” has 
been made into “Zerubbabel (begat) Rhesa.” This correction 
brings Lk. into harmony with both Mt. and 1 Chron. For (1) the 
Greek *Iwavds represents the Hebrew Hananiah (1 Chron. ili. 19), 
a generation which is omitted by Mt.; and (2) Lk.’s “Iovéa is the 
same as Mt.’s "ABuovd (Jud-a = Ab-jud). Again, “Iovda or “ABtovd 
may be identified with Hodaviah (1 Chron. iil. 24); for this name 
is interchanged with Judah, as is seen by a comparison of Ezra 
iii. 9 and Neh. xi. 9 with Ezra ii. 40 and 1 Chron. ix. 7. 

86. aha tod Katvap tod “Appatdd. In LXX this Cainan appears 
as the son of Sala or Shelah, and father of Arphaxad, in the genea- 
logy of Shem (Gen. x. 24, xl. 12; 1 Chron. i. 18). But the name 
is not found in any Hebrew MS., or in any other version made from 
the Hebrew. In LXX it may be an insertion, for no one earlier 
than Augustine mentions the name. D omits it here, while 8 B L 
have the form Kawap for Kawav. But the hypothesis that inter- 
polation here has led to interpolation in LXX cannot be maintained 
upon critical principles. 

38. "Addp. That Lk. should take the genealogy beyond David 
and Abraham to the father of the whole human race, is entirely in 
harmony with the Pauline universality of his Gospel. To the Jew 
it was all-important to know that the Messiah was of the stock of 
Abraham and of the house of David. Mt. therefore places this fact 

1 Both forms of the name, Shealtiel and Salathiel, are found in Haggai and 
elsewhere in O.T.; but in the Apocrypha and N.T. the form used is Salathie] 
(«I have asked God ”). 


III. 88.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 105 


in the forefront of his Gospel. Lk., writing to all alike, shows that 
the Messiah is akin to the Gentile as well as to the Jew, and that 
all mankind can claim Him as a brother.! 

But why does Lk. add that Adam was the son of God? Cer- 
tainly not in order to show the Divine Sonship of the Messiah, 
which would place Him in this respect on a level with all mankind. 
More probably it is added for the sake of Gentile readers, to remind 
them of the Divine origin of the human race,—an origin which they 
share with the Messiah. It is a correction of the myths respecting 
the origin of man, which were current among the heathen. Scrif- 
tura, etiam quod ad humani generis ortum pertinel, figit satiatque 
cognitionem nostram ; eam gui spernunt aut ignorant, pendent errant- 
gue inter tempora antemundana et postmundana (Beng.). It is very 
forced and unnatural to take rod @cod as the gen. of 6 @eds, and 
make this gen. depend upon @v vids at the beginning of the gene- 
alogy, as if Jesus and not Adam was styled the “‘son of God.” ‘Thus 
the whole pedigree from as évouilero to “Addy would be a gigantic 
parenthesis between @v vids and tod Ocov. The tov throughout 
belongs to the word zz front of it, as is clear from the fact that 
*Iwond, the first name, has no 70d before it. Each rod means “‘ who 
was of,” z.e. either “the son of” or “the heir of.” Both AV. and 
RV. give the sense correctly. 


IV. 1-13. Zhe Jnternal Preparation for the Ministry of the 
Christ: the Temptation in the Wilderness, Mt. iv. 1-11; Mk. 
Lorey 53. 


R. C. Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 1-65, Macmillan, 
1867; B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. ii. 10, Berlin, 1882; Eng. tr. i. 
pp. 319-354; H. Latham, Pastor Pastorum, pp. 112-146, Bell, 
1890; P. Schaff, Person of Christ, pp. 32, 153, Nisbet, 1880; A. 
M. Fairbairn, Zxfoszéor, first series, vol. iil. pp. 321-342, Hodder, 
1876; P. Didon, Jésus Chris?, ch. ii. pp. 208-226, Plon, 1891. 

Many futile and irreverent questions have been raised respect- 
ing this mysterious subject; futile, because it is impossible to 
answer them, excepting by empty conjectures; and irreverent, 
because they are prompted by curiosity rather than by a desire for 
illumination. Had the answers to them been necessary for our 
spiri{ual welfare, the answers would have been placed within our 
reach. Among such questions are such as these: Did Satan 


1 «<Tn the one case we see a royal Infant born by a regal title to a glorious 
inheritance ; and in the other a ministering Saviour who bears the natural sum 
of human sorrow” (Wsctt. Jt. to the Gospels, 7th ed. p. 316). The whole 
passage should be read. 


106 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE Eve: 


assume a human form, and change his form with each change of 
temptation, or did he remain invisible? Did he know who Jesus 
was, or was he trying to discover this? Did he know, until he was 
named, that Jesus knew who he wasP_ Where was the spot from 
which he showed all the kingdoms of the world? 

; Three points are insisted upon in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
(ii. 18, iv. 15), and beyond them we need not go. 1. The tempta- 
tions were real. 2. Jesus remained absolutely unstained by them. 
3. One purpose of the temptations was to assure us of His sym- 
pathy when we are tempted. The second point limits the first and 
intensifies the third. The sinlessness of Jesus excluded all those 
temptations which spring from previous sin ; for there was no taint 
in Him to become the source of temptation. But the fact that the 
solicitations came wholly from without, and were not born from 
within, does not prevent that which was offered to Him being 
regarded as desirable. The force of a temptation depends, not 
upon the sin involved in what is proposed, but upon the advantage 
connected with it. And a righteous man, whose will never falters 
for a moment, may feel the attractiveness of the advantage more 
keenly than the weak man who succumbs; for the latter probably 
gave way before he recognized the whole of the attractiveness; or 
his nature may be less capable of such recognition. In this way 
the sinlessness of Jesus augments His capacity for sympathy: for 
in every case He felt the fw// force of temptation.? 

It is obvious that the substance of the narrative could have 
had only one source. No one has succeeded in suggesting any 
probable alternative. There is no Old Testament parallel, of which 
this could be an adaptation. Nor is there any prophecy that the 
Messiah would have to endure temptation, of which this might be 
a fictitious fulfilment. And we may be sure that, if the whole 
had been baseless invention, the temptations would have been of 
a more commonplace, and probably of a grosser kind. No Jewish 
or Christian legend is at all like this. It is from Christ Himself 
that the narrative comes ; and He probably gave it to the disciples 
in much the same form as that in which we have it here. 


1 «¢ Sympathy with the sinner in his trial does not depend on the experience 
of sin, but on the experience of the strength of the temptation to sin, which only 
the sinless can know in its full intensity. He who falls yields before the last 
strain” (Wsctt. on Heb. ii. 18). See Neander, Z. 7. C. §§ 46, 47, pp- 77, 78 


IV. 1, 2.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 107 


1. whypys Tvedpatos dylov. These words connect the Tempta- 
tion closely with the Baptism.! It was under the influence of 
the Spirit, which had just descended upon Him, that He went, in 
obedience to God’s will, into the wilderness. All three accounts 
mark this connexion ; and it explains the meaning of the narrative. 
Jesus had been endowed with supernatural power; and He was 
tempted to make use of it in furthering His own interests without 
regard to the Father’s will. And here av7jx0y .. . retpacOjvar 
(Mt. iv. 1) must not be understood as meaning that Christ went 
into the wilderness to court temptation. That would be too like 
yielding to the temptation which He resisted (vv. 9-12). He 
went into the desert in obedience to the Spirit’s promptings. That 
He should be ¢empied there was the Divine purpose respecting 
Him, to prepare Him for His work. 


Neither Mt. nor Mk. has dco as an epithet of rvefya here (see on i. 15) ; 
and neither of them has Lk.’s favourite bréorpepev. 


HyeTo év TH Trvedpate ev TH epypw. “He was led zz (not zxZo) 
the wilderness,” z.e. in His wanderings there, as in His progress 
thither, He was under Divine influence and guidance. The imperf. 
indicates continued action. Tradition, which is not likely to be of 
any value, places this wilderness close to Jericho. Some region 
farther north is more probable. The *pépas teocepdxovta may be 
taken either with jyero (RV.) or with weipafdmevos (AV.)- As the 
temptation by Satan was simultaneous (pres. part.) with the lead- 
ing by the Spirit, the sense will be the same, whichever arrange- 
ment be adopted. In Mk. also the words are amphibolous, and 
may be taken either with jv év rj épjpo or with repafduevos. It 
we had only the account in Mt. we might have supposed that the 
temptations did not begin until the close of the forty days. The 
three recorded may have come at the end of the time, as seems to be 
implied with regard to the first of them. Or they may be given as 
representative of the struggles which continued throughout the 
whole period. 

2. mweipafdpuevos. The word is here used in its commonest 
sense of “try or test,” with a szzster motive. In N.T. it has three 
uses: 1. “try or attempt” to do (Acts ix. 26, xvi. 7, xxiv. 6); 2. 
“try or Zest,” with a good motive (Jn. vi. 6; 2 Cor. xili. 5; Rev. 
ii. 2), especially of God’s sending trials (1 Cor. x. 13; Heb. xi. 17; 


1 Te baptéme et la tentation se succedent [un a Tautre dans la réalité de 
Phistotre, comme dans le récit des Evangélistes. Ces deux faits inséparables, 
qui sSéclatrent en s’opposant dans un contraste vigoreux, sont le vrai prélude 
de la vie du Christ. Lun est la manifestation de [Esprit de Dieu, Cautre, 
celle de Tesprit du mal; [un nous montre la filiation divine de Jésus, Pautre, 
sa nature humaine vouée a la lutte et a Pépreuve; [un nous révele la force infinie 
avec laquelle il agira, Pautre, Tobstacle quil saura renverser; Tun nous 
enseigne sa intime, Pautre, la lot de son action (Didon, p. 225). 


108 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 2. 


Rev. iii. 10); 3. “try or Zes¢,” with a Jad motive, in order to pro- 
duce perplexity or failure (xi. 16; Mt. xix. 3; Jn. viii. 6), especially 
of tempting to sin (1 Cor. vii. 5; 1 Thes. iii. 5; Jas. i. 13). It is 
thus of much wider meaning than doxwalew (xii. 56, xiv. 19), 
which has only the second of these meanings. Trench, Sya. 
Ixxiv. ; Cremer, Zex. p. 494. 

bmd to SiaBddov. All three use id of the agency of Satan. 
He is not a mere instrument. ‘ Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 11; Acts x. 38. 
In N.T. d:aB8odos with the art. always means Satan, “the calumni- 
ator,” car efoyyv. In Mt., Jn., Acts, Eph., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., 
James, Jude, 1 Pet., and Rev. this use is invariable. It is possible 
that 6 dvaBoAos was originally a translation of Satan=“ the ad- 
versary.” In LXX évdiaBaddewv sometimes means “ meet, oppose” 
(Num. xxil. 22, 32), and duaBoAos means “adversary” (1 Mace. i. 
36). In Job (i. 6-12, ii. 1-7) and Zech. (iii. 1-3) 6 diéBorAos is 
used as in N.T. for Satan, as the accuser or slanderer of God to 
man and of man to God. In this scene he endeavours to mis- 
represent God, and to induce Jesus to adopt a false view of His 
relation to God, 

The existence of such a being is sometimes denied, but on 
purely @ priori grounds. To science the question is an open one, 
and does not admit of demonstration either way. But the teach- 
ing of Christ and His Apostles is clear and explicit; and oniy 
three explanations are possible. Either (1) they accommodated 
their language to a gross superstition, knowing it to be such; or 
t?} they shared this superstition, not knowing it to be such; or 
3) the doctrine is not a superstition, but they taught the actual 
truth. As Keim rightly says, one cannot possibly regard all the 
sayings of Jesus on this subject as later interpolations, and “‘ Jesus 
plainly designated His contention with the empire of Satan as a 
personal one” (Jes. of Vaz., Eng. tr. ii. pp. 318, 325). See Gore, 
Dissertations on Subjects connected with the Incarnation, pp. 23-27. 

odk epayev otdév. This does agree well with the supposition 
that Jesus partook of the scanty food which might be found in the 
wilderness. The vyorevoas of Mt. seems to imply the deliberate 
fasting which was customary in times of solemn retirement for 
purposes of devotion. But this does not exclude the possibility 
that the mental and spiritual strain was so great that for a time 
there was no craving for food. In any case the want of food 
would at last bring prostration of body and mind; and then the 
violence of temptation would be specially felt. Both Mt. and Lk. 
appear to mean that it was not until near the end of the forty days 
that the pangs of hunger were endured. For ouvtedetoor of days 
being completed comp. Acts xxi. 27; Jobi. 5; Tobit x. 7.} 


1 The fasts of Moses and Elijah were of similar duration (Deut. ix.9; 1 K. 
xix. 8), The number forty in Scripture is connected with suffering. The 


IV. 3.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 109 


8. etrev. Mt. adds zpoceA@av, which is a very favourite ex- 
pression of his. It does not necessarily imply corporal presence, 
although Mt. himself may have understood it in that sense. Jesus 
says of the approaching struggle in Gethsemane, “The prince of the 
world cometh” (Jn. xiv. 30). Nowhere in Scripture is Satan said 
to have appeared in a visible form: Zech. iil. 1 isa vision. And 
nothing in this narrative requires us to believe that Satan was 
visible on this occasion. 

Ei vids et tod Geos. Both Mt. and Lk. have vids 7. ©. without 
the article, the reference being to the relationship to God, rather 
than to the office of the Messiah. The emphatic word is vids. 
The allusion to the voice from heaven (ili. 22) is manifest, but is 
not likely to have occurred to a writer of fiction, who would more 
probably have written, “If Thou art the Christ.” The “if” does 
not necessarily imply any doubt in Satan, although Augustine takes 
it so;! but it is perhaps meant to inspire doubt in Jesus: “ Hath 
God said, Thou art My beloved Son, and yet forbidden Thee to 
give Thyself bread?” Comp. “ Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not 
eat of any tree of the garden?” (Gen. iii. 1). The suggestion 
seems to be that He is fo work a miracle in order to prove the 
truth of God’s express declaration, and that He may doubt His 
relation to God, if God does not allow the miracle. 


This seems better than to regard the first temptation as a temptation of the 
flesh. Vf the food had been there, would it have been sinful for Jesus to partake 
ofit? Again, it is sometimes said that it was a temptation fo use Hits supernatural 
power to supply His own necessities. Among ‘‘the Laws of the Working of 
Signs” we are told was one to the effect that ‘‘Our Lord will not use His 
special powers to provide for His personal wants or those of His immediate 
followers.”? This law perhaps does not hold, except so far as it coincides 
with the principle that no miracle is wrought where the given end can be ob- 
tained without miracle. Some of Christ’s escapes from His enemies seem to 
have been miraculous. Was not that “‘ providing for a personal want”? His 
rejoining His disciples by walking on the sea might be classed under the same 
head. The boat coming suddenly to land might be called ‘‘ providing for the 
wants of His immediate followers.” Had He habitually supplied His personal 
wants by miracle, then He would have ceased to share the lot of mankind. 
But it would be rash to say that it would have been sinful for Him to supply 
Himself with food miraculously, when food was necessary for His work and 
could not be obtained by ordinary means. It is safer to regard this as a 
temptation to satisfy Himself of the truth of God’s word by a test of His own. 


Deluge lasted forty days and nights (Gen. vii. 4, 12). The Israelites wandered 
for forty years (Num. xiv. 33, xxxii. 13). Egypt is to lie waste forty years 
(Ezek. xxix. 11). Ezekiel is to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah (z.e. the 
penalty for that iniquity) forty days, each day representing a year (iv. 6). 
Offenders received forty stripes as a maximum (Deut. xxv. 3). A mother was 
unclean for forty days after childbirth (Lev. xii. 1-4). Perhaps we are to 
understand that the fast of the Ninevites lasted forty days. 

1 Dubztavit de illo demonum princeps, eumque tentavit, an Christus esset 
explorans (De Civ. Dez, ix. 21). 

3 Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 113. 


110 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 8-5, 


The singular r@ AL0w Tobrw is more graphic tl.an the ol Al@or obra. of Mt. A 
single loaf is all that He need produce. The similarity between lumps of stone 
and loaves of bread perhaps explains why this material, so common in the 
wilderness, was selected for change into food. 


For the use of wa after elwé (x. 40, xix. 15, etc.) see Win. xliv. 8, pp. 
420-424; B. Weiss on Mt. iv. 3; Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 177; Green, 
Gr. of N.T. p. 170. It is a weakening of the telic force of tva rather than a 
mere substitute for the infinitive. 


4. Christ does not reply to the “if” by affirming that He is 
the Son of God; nor does He explain why the Son of God does 
not accept the devil’s challenge. He gives an answer which holds 
good for any child of God in similar temptation.!. The reply is a 
pointed refutation, however, of the special suggestion to Himself, 
6 av@pwrros having direct reference to vids tr. Oeov. Satan suggests 
that God’s Son would surely be allowed to provide food for Him- 
self. Jesus replies that God can sustain, not only His Son, but 
any human being, with or without food, and can make other things 
besides bread to be food. Comp. “ My meat is to do the will of 
Him that sent Me” (Jn. iv. 34). The reply is verbatim as LXX 
of Deut. viii. 3. As all His replies come from this book, we may 
conjecture that Jesus had recently been reading it or meditating 
on it. The repeated use of a book which is so full of the trials of 
Israel in the wilderness may suggest a parallel between the forty 
days and the forty years. The direct reference is to the manna. 


The addition of the remainder of the quotation in A D and other authorities 
comes from Mt. It differs in wording in the texts which insert it. If it were 
genuine here, its absence from the best authorities would be most extra- 
ordinary. The insertion of 6 diaBodos and of els bpos byAcv in ver. 5, and 
the peweenizce of Tov Kécpou for THs olkouyévns, are corruptions of the same 
kind. 

5. Lk. places second the temptation which Mt. places last. 
The reasons given for preferring one order to the other are sub- 
jective and unconvincing. Perhaps neither Evangelist professes to 
give any chronological order. Temptations may be intermingled. 
It is very doubtful whether the 7ére with which Mt. introduces the 
temptation which he places second, and the zaAw with which he 
introduces his third, are intended to specify sequence in time. 
Many Lat. MSS. (Gbcflqr) here place wv. 5-8 after vv. g-11. 
Lk. omits the command to Satan to depart;? and we have no 
means of knowing which temptation it zmediately followed. Mt. 
naturally connects it with the one which he places last. 

évayaydév. See on ii. 22. The word does not require us to 


1Trench quotes from Ambrose: Won enim quast Deus utitur protestate 
(quzd enim mzhi proderat), sed quasi homo commune stbi arcesstt auxtlium. 

2 It is worth noting that AV., which follows those texts that insert "Ywaye 
éricov ov, Lavava in ver. 8, renders the words ‘‘ Get thee behind Me, Satan ” 
there, and ‘* Get thee hence, Satan” in Mt. 


IV. 5, 6.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY Il 


believe that Satan had control of Christ’s person and transferred 
Him bodily from the desert to a mountain-top. From no mountain 
could “all the kingdoms of the world” be visible, least of all “in 
a moment of time.” If Satan on the mountain could present to 
Christ’s mind kingdoms which were not visible to the eye, he 
could do so in the desert. We may suppose that he transferred 
Jesus 7” thought to a mountain-top, whence He could in thought 
see all. For “all the kingdoms of the world” comp. Ezra i. 2, 
where we have tas ys for “of the world”: in Mt. rod xéopov, 
which D substitutes here. 

Tis oikoupévns. A favourite expression with Lk. (ii. 1, xxi. 26; 
Acts xi. 28, xvii. 6, 31, xix. 27, xxiv. 5): elsewhere only six times, 
of which one is a quotation (Rom. x. 18 from Ps. xix. 5). It 
describes the world as a Jlace of settled government, “the civilized 
world.” To a Greek it might mean the Greek world as distinct 
from barbarian regions (Hdt. iv. 110. 4; comp. Dem. De Cor. 
p. 442). Later it meant “the Roman Empire,” ovdis terrarum, as 
in ii. 1 (Philo, Zeg. ad Caz. 25). In inscriptions the Roman 
Emperor is 6 xvpuos THs oixovpevys. Finally, it meant “the whole 
inhabited earth,” as here and xxi. 26 (Rev. xvi. 14; Heb. i. 6; 
Jos. Azz. viii. 13. 4: B./. vii. 3. 3). In Heb. ii. 5 it is used of 
the world to come as an ordered system: see Wsctt. Lk. omits 
kat tHv dogav airav here, but adds it in Satan’s offer. 

év ottyph xpdvov. LPuncto temporis: comp. év pirp dépOadrpod 
f@orexy.52). Not in Mt. Comp. Is. xux. 5; 2 Mac. ix. 41. 
It intimates that the kingdoms were represented, not in a series of 
pageants, but simultaneously: acuta tentatio (Beng.). To take ev 
orypy xp. With dvayaydy is not a probable arrangement. With 
ortypn (orilew =“ to prick”) comp. stmulus, “stick,” and “ sting.” 

6. Zot Sdow .. . Ste Evol mapadsédorar. Both pronouns are 
emphatic: “To Z%ee I will give . . . because to me it hath been 
delivered.” 


The avré&p after rhv ddtay is a constructio ad sensum, referring to the 
kingdoms understood in ri éfovelay ratrny, ‘‘ this authority and jurisdiction.” 
In rapadédorac we have the common use of the perf. to express permanent 
and present result of past action ; ‘‘it has been given over” and remains in 
my possession: comp. yéypamrat (4, 8, 10) and elpyrat (12). 


Satan does not say by whom it has been given over; and two answers are 
possible: 1. by God’s permission ; 2. by man’s sin. But the latter does not 
exclude the former; and in any case conjitetur tentator, se non esse conditorem 
(Beng.). That it refers to a Divine gift previous to his revolt against God, is a 
gratuitous conjecture. Christ Himself speaks of Satan as “‘the ruler of this 
world” (Jn. xii, 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11). In the Rabbinical writings ‘‘ Lord of 
this world” is a common name for Satan, as ruler of the heathen, in opposition 
to God, the Head of the Jewish theocracy. The devil is the ruler of the un- 
believing and sinful; but he mixes truth with falsehood when he claims to have 
dominion over all the material glory of the world. Comp. Eph. ii. 2; 2 Com 


112 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _[IvV. 6-9. 


iv. 4; Rev. xiii. 2. In ¢ 4» 6é\w the mixture of falsehood seems to be still 
greater. Even of those who are under the dominion of Satan it is only in a 
limited sense true that he can dispose of them as he pleases. But the subtlety 
of the temptation lies partly in the fact that it appeals to what is in a very real 
sense true. Satan intimates that the enormous influence which he possesses 
over human affairs may be obtained for the promotion of the Messiah’s King- 
dom. Thus all the pain and suffering, which otherwise lay before the Saviour 
of the world, might be evaded.! 


7. éav mpooxumons. Mt. adds zeodv, which, like zpoocd@uv, 
indicates that he may have believed that Satan was visible, 
although this is not certain. Even actual prostration is possible 
to an invisible being, and “fall down and worship” is a natural 
figure for entire submission or intense admiration. In the East, 
prostration is an acknowledgment of authority, not necessarily of 
personal merit. The temptation, therefore, seems to be that of 
admitting Satan’s authority and accepting promotion from him. 


évétiov énot. Lk.’s favourite expression (i. 15, 17, 19, 75, etc.). The 
usual constr. after mpooxuvety is the acc. (ver. 8; Mt. iv. 10; Rev. ix. 20, 


xiii, 12, xiv. 9, II) or the dat. (Acts vii. 43; jn. iv. 21, 233 Rev. iv. 10, 
vii. 11): but Rev. xv. 4 as here. 


gota. cod maga. The éfovcfa which has been delivered to 
me I am willing to delegate or transfer”: magna superbia (Beng.). 
The acceptance of it would be equivalent to zpocxtvyous. Just as 
in the first case the lawful desire for food was made an occasion of 
temptation, so here the lawful desire of power, a desire specially 
lawful in the Messiah. Everything depends upon why and how 
the. food and the power are obtained. Christ was born to be a 
king ; but His Kingdom is not of this world (Jn. xviii. 36, 37), and 
the prince of this world has nothing in Him (Jn. xiv. 30). He 
rejects the Jewish idea of the Messiah as an earthly potentate, and 
thus condemns Himself to rejection by His own people. He 
rejects Satan as an ally, and thereby has him as an implacable 
enemy. ‘The end does not sanctify the means. 

8. mpookuyycets. Mt. also has this word in harmony with 
Satan’s mpooxuvyoys ; but in LXX of Deut. vi. 13 we have ¢o- 
BnOyon: see on vii. 27.—Aatpedcers. Lit. “serve for hire” 
(Adrpis = “‘hireling”). In class. Grk. it is used of the service of 
slaves and of freemen, whether rendered to men or to God: in 
N.T. always of religious service, but sometimes of the worship of 
idols (Acts vii. 42; Rom. i. 25). Trench, Syz. xxxv. Propositum 
erat Domino humilitate diabolum vincere, non potentia (Jerome). 

9. 76 mrepvy.ov tod tepod. It is impossible to determine what 


1In this connexion a remark of Pére Didon is worth quoting. Of the 
traditional scene of the Temptation he says that there Christ avazt sous les yeux 
ce chemin de Jéricho a Jérusalem qwil devait suture, un jour, avec ses disciples, 
pour aller 2 la mort ( Jésus Christ, ch. iii. p. 209). 


Iv. 9-12.] PREPARATION FOR TIIE MINISTRY 113 


this means. The article points to its being something well known 
by this name. The three points conjectured are: 1. the top of 
the Royal Porch, whence one looked into an abyss (Jos. Azz. 
xv. II. 5); 2. the top of Solomon’s Porch; 3. the roof of the 
<ads. It was from 76 wrepvy.ov Tod iepod that James the Just was 
thrown, according to Hegesippus (Eus. & Z. ii. 23. 11, 16). Had 
any part of the vads been intended, we should perhaps have had 
tT. vaod rather than 7. tepov. 

Ei uids et tod Ocod. The repetition of this preamble is evidence 
that this temptation is in part the same as the first (ver. 3). In 
both cases Jesus is to “tempt” (ver. 12) God, to challenge Him 
to prove His Fatherhood by a test of His Son’s own choosing. 
But, whereas in the first case Christ was to be rescued from an 
existing danger by a miracle, here He is to cour¢ needless danger 
in order to be rescued by a miracle. It may be that this is also a 
partial repetition of the second temptation. If the suggestion is 
that He should throw Himself down into the courts of the temple, 
so that the priests and the people might see His miraculous 
descent, and be convinced of His Messiahship, then this is once 
more a temptation to take a short cut to success, and, by doing 
violence to men’s wills, avoid all the pain and suffering involved 
in the work of redemption.! If this is correct, then this tempta- 
tion is a combination of the other two. It is difficult to see what 
point there is in mentioning the temple, if presumptuously seeking 
peril was the only element in the temptation. The precipices of 
the wilderness would have served for that. The Bdde ceautdv 
expresses more definitely than the mid. would have done that the 
act is to be entirely His own. Not “Fall,” nor “Spring,” but 
“Cast Thyself”; desice teipsum. Comp. éavrots mAavamev (1 Jn. 
i. 8). 

10. The fact that after tod gudéfor. ce Satan omits év rdcais 
tais ddots gov is in favour of the view that presumptuous rushing 
into danger is part of the temptation. To fling oneself down from 
a height is not going “in one’s ways,” but out of them. The 
disobedient Prophet was slain by the lion, the obedient Daniel 
was preserved in the lions’ den. But we are not sure that the 
omission of the words has this significance. 

11. émt xerpdv. “ Ox their hands,” implying great carefulness. 
The mpés Aifov has no special reference either to the temple or the 
rocks below: stones abound in most places, and lie in the way 
of those who stumble. 

12. Eipyta. In Mt. Idédw yéyparrat. Jesus had appealed to 
Scripture; Satan does the same; and then Jesus shows that 
isolated texts may be misleading. They may be understood in a 
sense plainly at variance with some other passage. Satan had 

y a Edersh. Z. & 7. i. p. 304; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 140. 


114 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [Iv. 12, 13. 


suggested that it was impossible to put too much trust in God. 
Christ points out that testing God is not trusting Him. 


The verb éxmecpa few is wholly biblical (x. 25 ; Mt. iv. 7; Ps. Ixxvii. 18). In 
the Heb. it is ‘‘ Ye shall not tempt”: but in LXX we have the sing. as here. 


18. mdévra weipacpdv. “Every kind of temptation”: a further 
indication that He was tempted throughout the forty days, and that 
what is recorded is merely an illustration of what took place. 
The enemy tried all his weapons, and was at all points defeated. 
Comp. zaca duaptia kai BAacdynpia, “all manner of sin and 
blasphemy” (Mt. xii. 31); wav dédpov, “every kind of tree (Mt. 
ili, 10); 6 wey macys Hoovys dmoXatwy Kal pydemids amexopevos 
dxédaotos, “he who enjoys every kind of pleasure,” etc. (Arist. 
Eth. Nic. ii. 2. 7). 

&xpt kaipod. ‘Until a convenient season.” This rendering 
gives the proper meaning both of dyp and of xatpos: comp. Acts 
xiii, 11, xxiv. 25; Lk. xxi. 24. It is Satan’s expectation that on 
some future occasion he will have an opportunity of better success ; 
and an opportunity came when Judas was allowed to deliver the _ 
Christ into the hands of His enemies. That this was such an 
occasion seems to be indicated by Christ's own declarations: 
“The prince of this world cometh; and he hath nothing in Me” 
Jn. xiv. 30); and “This is your hour and the power of darkness” 
Lk. xxii. 53). Satan was not visible in a bodily shape then, and 
probably not on this earlier occasion. It is Peter who on one 
occasion became a visible tempter (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 33). Not 
that we are to suppose, however, that Satan entirely desisted from 
attacks between the beginning and end of Christ’s ministry: ‘“ Ye 
are they which have continued with Me in My temptations,” rather 
implies the contrary (xxii. 28); but the evil one seems to have 
accumulated attacks at the beginning and the end. In the wilder- 
ness he employed the attractiveness of painless glory and success ; 
in the garden he tried the dread of suffering and failure. All 
human temptation takes place through the instrumentality of 
pleasure or pain. 


Luke says nothing about the ministration of Angels which followed the 
temptation, as recorded by both Mt. and Mk., not because he doubts such facts, 
for he repeatedly records them (i. 11, 26, ii. 9, xxii. 43; Acts v. 19, vill. 26, 
xii. 7, xxvii. 23), but probably because his source said nothing about them. Mk. 
seems to mean that Angels were ministering to Jesus during the whole of the 
forty days: his three imperfects (fv . . . Hv . . . dinxdvour) are co-ordinate, 

The Temptation is not a dream, nor a vision, nor a myth, nor a parable, 
translated into history by those who heard and misunderstood it, but an histor- 
ical fact. It was part of the Messiah’s preparation for His work. In His 
baptism He received strength. In His temptation He practised the use of it. 
Moreover, He thus as man acquired experience (Heb. v. 8) of the possibilities of 
evil, and of the violent and subtle ways in which His work could be ruined. 

Only from Himself could the disciples have learned the history of this 


Iv. 18.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 115 


struggle. Among other things it taught them the value of the Jewish Scriptures. 
With these for their guide they could overcome the evil one, as He had done: no 
special illumination was necessary (xvi. 29, 31). 


IV. 14-IX. 50. The Ministry in Galilee. 


Lk., like Mt. and Mk., omits the early ministry in Judzea; but 
we shall find that his narrative, like theirs, implies it. All three of 
them connect the beginning of the Galilean ministry with the 
Baptism and the Temptation; while Mt. and Mk. make the im- 
prisonment of the Baptist to be the occasion of Christ’s departure 
from Judza into Galilee (Mt. iv. 12; Mk. i. 14). But they neither 
assert nor imply that John was imprisoned soon after the Tempta- 
tion; nor do they explain why the arrest of John by Herod Antipas 
should make Christ take refuge in this same Herod’s dominions. 
It is from the Fourth Gospel that we learn that there was a con- 
siderable interval between the Temptation and John’s imprison- 
ment, and that during it Jesus went into Galilee and returned to 
Judea again (ii. 13). From it also we learn that the occasion of 
the second departure into Galilee was the jealousy of the Pharisees, 
who had been told that Jesus was making and baptizing more 
disciples even than the Baptist. Much as they disliked and feared 
the revolutionary influence of John, they feared that of Jesus still 
more. John declared that he was not the Christ, he “did no sign,” 
and he upheld the Law. Whereas Jesus had been pointed out as 
the Messiah; He worked miracles, and He disregarded, not only 
traditions which were held to be equal to the Law (Jn. iv. 9), but 
even the Law itself in the matter of the Sabbath (Jn. v. 9g, 10). 
Thus we see that it was not to escape the persecution of Herod, but 
to escape that of the Pharisees, who had delivered the Baptist into 
the hands of Herod, that Jesus retired a second time from Judea 
into Galilee. It was “after that John was delivered up” (Mk. i. 14), 
and “when He eard that John was delivered up” (Mt. iv. 12), 
that Christ retired into Galilee. In neither case was it Herod’s 
action, but the action of those who delivered John into the hands 
of Herod, that led to Christ’s change of sphere. And in this way 
what is recorded in the Fourth Gospel explains the obscurities of 
the other three. 


There is a slight apparent difference between the first two Gospels and the 
third. The three Evangelists agree in noticing only one return from Judza 


116 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 14. 


to Galilee, and possibly each knows of only one. But whereas Mt. and Mk. 
seem to point to the second return, for they connect it with the delivering u 
of the Baptist, Lk. seems rather to point to the first return, for he connects it 
with ‘‘ the power of the Spirit,” an expression which suggests a reference to 
that power which Jesus had received at the Baptism and exercised in the 
Temptation. It is quite possible, however, that the expression refers to the 

wer with which He had worked miracles and taught in Galilee and Judzea ; 
in which case all three Gospels treat of the second return to Galilee. 


Not very much plan is discernible in this portion of the Gospel ; 
and it may be doubted whether the divisions made by com- 
mentators correspond with any arrangement which the writer had 
in his mind. But even artificial schemes help to a clearer appre- 
hension of the whole ; and the arrangement suggested by Godet is, 
at any rate, useful for this purpose. He takes the Development in 
the Position of Christs Disciples as the principle of his divisions. 

1. iv. 14-44. To the Call of the first Disciples. 

2. v. I-vi. 11. To the Nomination of the Twelve. 

3. vi. 12—-viii. 56. To the first Mission of the Twelve. 

4. ix. 1-50. To the Departure for Jerusalem. 

These divisions are clearly marked out in the text of WH.,a 
space being left at the end of each. 


IV. 14-44. Zhe Ministry in Galilee to the Call of the first 
Disciples. The Visits to Nazareth and Capernaum. 


14,15. Comp. Mt. iv. 12; Mk. i. 14. These two verses are 
introductory, and point out three characteristics of this period of 
Christ’s activity. 1. He worked in the power of the Spirit. 2. His 
fame spread far and wide. 3. The synagogues were the scenes of 
His preaching (comp. ver. 44). 

14. év TH duvdper Tod TveUpatos. This is perhaps to remind us 
that since His first departure from Galilee He has been endowed 
with the Holy Spirit and has received new powers (iii. 22, iv. 1, 18). 
Bengel’s post victoriam corroboratus connects it too exclusively 
with the Temptation. Unless, with De Wette, we take kai oypy 
eéf\Oev as anticipating what follows, the statement implies much 
preaching and perhaps some miracles, of which Lk. has said 
nothing ; for Jesus is famous directly He returns. The power of 
the Spirit had already been exhibited in Him. Jn. says that “the 
Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in 
Jerusalem at the feast” (iv. 45). But it is not likely that they had 
heard of the wonders which attended the Birth, or of those which 
attended the Baptism. 

There are various marks of Lk.’s style. 1. baéorpewev, for which Mt. has 
dvexwpynoev and Mk. 7\@ev. Comp. ver. 1, where Lk. has bréorpevev, while 
Mt. has dv7jx6y. 2. SUvapes of Divine power. Comp. i. 35, and see on 
iv. 36. 3. «a0 Ans in this sense. Comp. xxiii. 5; Acts ix. 31, 42, x. 37: 


Tv. 14, 15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 117 


it is peculiar to Lk. See Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 148. 4. 4 weptxdpos, se. 
"yj, is an expression of which Lk. is fond (iii. 3, iv. 37, vii. 17, viil. 37; Acts 
xiv. 6); not in Jn., and only twice in Mt. (iii. 5, xiv. 35) and once in Mk. 
(i. 28; not vi. 55). 


15. kai adtds éSi8ackev. Lk. is so fond of this mode of transi- 
tion that avrds possibly has no special significance ; if it has, it is 
“He Himself,” as distinct from the rumour respecting Him. The 
impert points to His habitual practice at this time, and seems to 





eprive what follows of all chronological connexion. All the 
Gospels mention His teaching in synagogues, and give instances of 
His doing so during the early part of His ministry (Mt. iv. 23; 
imee5s xi Oo, xill. 545 Mk. i. 21, 30, ii. 1; Vigig; Lk. iv. 44, vi. 6; 
Jn. vi. 59). ‘Towards the close of it, when the hostility of the, 
teachers became more pronounced, there is less mention of this 
practice: perhaps He then taught elsewhere, in order to avoid 
needless collision. It should be noticed that here, as elsewhere, it 
is the feaching rather than the worship in the synagogues that is 
prominent. Synagogues were primarily places of instruction 
(xiii. 10; Jn. xviii. 20; Acts xili. 27, xv. 21, etc.), and it was as 


such that Augustus encouraged them. Morality of a high kind 
was taught there, and morality is on the side of order. 

év Tals guvaywyats adtay. This means in the synagogues of the 
Galileans. Galilee at this time was very populous. Josephus no 
doubt exaggerates when he says that the smallest villages had 
fifteen thousand inhabitants (2. /. iii. 3. 2), and that there were 
over two hundred towns and villages. But in any case there were 
many Galileans. Among them there was more freshness and less 
formalism than among the inhabitants of Judza. Here the 
Pharisees and the hierarchy had less influence, and therefore 
Galilee was a more hopeful field in which to seek the first elements 
of a Church. On the other hand, it was necessary to break down 
the prejudices of those who had known Him in His youth, and had 
seen in Him no signs of His being the Messiah that they were 
expecting: and the fame of the miracles which He had wrought in 
Judzea was likely to contribute towards this. Thus the Judean 
ministry prepared the way for the more promising ministry in 
Galilee. We have.no means of estimating the number of Galilean 
synagogues; but the fact that such a place as Capernaum had 
either none, or only a.poor one, until a Roman centurion was 
moved to provide one (“himself built us our synagogue,” vii. 5), 
is some evidence that by no means every village or even every 
small town possessed one. The remains of ancient synagogues 
exist at several places in Galilee ; Ze//-Hum, [rbid (the Arbela of 
1 Mac. ix. 2), /isch (Giscala), Meiron (Mero), Kasyoun, Nabartein, 
and Ke/r-Beretm. But it is doubtful whether any of these are older 
than the second or third century. 





Paes 


118 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 15, 16. 


The origin of synagogues is to be sought in the Babylonish captivity ; and 
they greatly increased in number after the destruction of the temple. The fact 
that Jewish legend derives the institution of synagogues from Moses, shows how 
essential the Jews considered it to be. The statement that there were at one 
time 480 synagogues in Jerusalem is also legendary ; but 480 may be a symbol- 
ical number. One has only to remember the size of Jerusalem to see the 
absurdity of 480 places of public instruction in it. But large towns sometimes 
had several synagogues, either for different nationalities (Acts vi. 9; see 
Lumby and Blass) or different handicrafts.! 


Sofatsuevos 675 mévtwy. Because of the power of His preach- 
ing, especially when contrasted with the lifeless repetitions and 
senseless trivialities of ordinary teachers. 

16-80. The Visit to Nazareth. Comp. Mt. xiii. 53-58; Mk. 
vi. 1-6. It remains doubtful whether Lk. here refers to the same 
visit as that recorded by Mt. and Mk. If it is the same, he per- 
haps has purposely transposed it to the opening of the ministry, as 
being typical of the issue of Christ’s ministry. He was rejected by 
His own people. Similarly the non-Galilean ministry opens with a 
rejection (ix. 51-56). In any case, the form of the narrative is 
peculiar to Lk., showing that he here has some special source. We 
are not to understand that the Galilean ministry began at Nazareth. 
More probably Christ waited until the reports of what He had said 
and done in other parts of Galilee prepared the way for His return 
to Nazareth as a teacher. 

16. 06 jv [dva}reOpoppevos. This tells us rather more than 
ii. 51: it implies, moreover, that for some time past Nazareth had 
ceased to be His home. But the addition of “where He had been 
brought up” explains what follows. It had been “ His custom” 
during His early life at Nazareth to attend the synagogue every 


‘sabbath. It is best to confine xara 76 eiwOds to the clause in 
_# \which it is embedded, and not carry it on to dvéorn dvayvévar: it 


lwas possibly the first time that He had stood up to read at 

Nazareth. But the phrase may refer to what had been His custom 
elsewhere since He began His ministry ; or it may be written from 
the Evangelist’s point of view of what was afterwards His custom. 
We may therefore choose between these explanations. 1. He had 
previously been in the habit of attending the synagogue at Nazareth, 
and on this occasion stood up to read. 2. He had previously been 
in the habit of reading at Nazareth. 3. He had lately been in the 
habit of reading elsewhere, and now does so at Nazareth. 4. This 
was an early example of what became His custom. In no case 
must the sermon be included in the custom. That this was His 
first sermon at Nazareth is implied by the whole conte=*. 


1Qn synagogues see Edersh. LZ. & TZ. i. pp. 430-450, Ast. of Jewish 

Nasion, pp, 100-129, ed. 1896; Schiirer, Jew7sh People in the T. of J. C. ii. 2, 

. 52-89; Hausrath, V.7. Z2mes, i. pp. 84-93; Plumptre in D.Z.; Leyrer in 
erzog, PRE.1; Strack in Herzog. PRZ.*; and other authorities in Schiirer. 


IV. 16.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 119 


In D both reOpappévos and atr@ after eiwObs are omitted, and the text 
tuns, é\Owy dé els Nafaped drrou Fv KaTd 7d elwOds ev TH nuepe TOY caBBdrew 
eis THY cuvaywy7jyv ; but in the Latin the former word is restored, venzens 
autem in Nazared ubi erat nutricatus introzbit secundum consuetudinem in 
sabbato in synagogam. The omissions are perhaps due to Marcionite in- 
fluence. According to Marcion, Christ came direct from heaven into the 
synagogue, de cxlo in synagogam (see p. 131); and therefore all trace of His 
previous life in Nazareth must be obliterated. He was not reared there, and 
was not accustomed to visit the synagogue there. Only a custom of attend- 
ing the synagogue existed. See Rendel Harris, Study of Codex Bez#, p. 232, 
in Texts and Studies, ii. 1. Comp. the insertions ix. 54, 55, which may be 
due to the same influence. ; 

The phrase card 7d elw@ds occurs in LXX Num, xxiv. 1; Sus. 13. Itis 
characteristic of Lk. See on xara 7d €@os, i. 8. With the dat. xara 7d elwOds 


occurs only here and Acts xvii. 2; and 77 7uépg TOv caBBdrwy occurs’ ~_ 


only here, Acts xiii. 14, and xvi. 13: but comp. Lk. xiii. 13, 16 and xiv. 5. 
It is a periphrasis for év Tots caB., or év TH oaB., or Tois caB., or TY oaB. 


évéorm dvayvavwr. Standing to read was the usual practice, 
excepting when the Book of Esther was read at the Feast of 
Purim: then the reader might sit. Christ’s standing up indicated 
that He had been asked to read, or was ready to doso, This is 
the only occasion on which we are told that Jesus read. 


The lectern was close to the front seats, where those who were most likely 
to be called upon to read commonly sat. A lesson from the 7horah or Law 
was read first, and then one from the Prophets. After the lesson had been 
read in Hebrew it was interpreted into Aramaic (Neh. viii. 8), or into Greek in 
places where Greek was commonly spoken. This was done verse by verse in 
the Law; but in the Prophets three verses might be taken at once, and in this 
case Jesus seems to have taken two verses. Then followed the exposition or 
sermon. The reader, interpreter, and preacher might be one, two, or three 
persons. Here Christ was both reader and preacher; and possibly He inter- 
preted as well.!_ Although there were officers with fixed duties attached to each 
synagogue, yet there was no one specially appointed either to read, or interpret, 
or preach, or pray. Any member of the congregation might discharge these 
duties ; and probably those who were competent discharged them in turn at the 
invitation of the dpxiovvdywyos (Acts xii. 15. Comp. Philo in Eus. Prep, 
Evang. viii. 7, p. 360 A, and Quod omnis probus liber xii.), Hence it was 
always easy for Jesus to address the congregation. When He became famous 
as a teacher He would often be invited to do so.?_ And during His early years 
He may have read without interpreting or expounding ; for even those under 
age were sometimes allowed to read in the synagogues. We cannot infer from 
His being able to read that He Himself possessed the Scriptures. In N.T. 
dvarywwwoxw is used in no other sense than that of readzng; lit. recognizing 


1 We have no right to infer from this incident that the Hebrew Bible could 
still be understood by the people. Nothing is said about interpretation; but 
we cannot assume that it did not take place. Mk. xv. 34 is evidence of some 
knowledge of O.T. in Aramaic. See Classccal Review, May 1894, p. 216, 
against Kautzsch, Grammatzk des biblischen Aramdzschen, p. 19. 

2 Comp. ’Avacras 6€ Tis TOv eumetpordtww bdyyeirat TdpicTa Kal cvvoloorra, 
ols das 6 Blos émiddce mpds 7d BédATLOv (Philo, De Seftenarzo, vi.). See also 
the fragments of Philo in Eus. Prep. Evang. viii. 7. 12, 13, and viii, 12, 10, 
ed. Gaisford. These three passages give us Philo’s account of the synagogue 
services. 


120 TITE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 16-18. 


again the written characters; of reading aloud, Acts xiii. 27, xv. 213; 2 Cor. 
ili. 15; Col. iv. 16; 1 Thes. v. 27. 


17. éwedd0y. “Was handed” to Him, “was given over by 
handing”: comp. ézefjrovy (ver. 42). It does not mean “was 
handed to Him zz addition,” implying that something else had 
been handed to Him previously. This meaning is not common, 
and is not found elsewhere in N.T. The reading of the Parascha, 
or section from the Law, had probably preceded, and had been 
read possibly by someone else. This was the Haphthara, or pro- 
phetic section (Acts xiii. 15). That Is. lxi. 1, 2 was the lesson 
appointed for the day is quite uncertain. We do not even know 
whether there was at that time any cycle of prophetical lessons, 
nor whether it would be strictly adhered to, if there was such. 
Apparently Isaiah was handed to Him without His asking for it; 
but that also is uncertain. The cycle of lessons now in use is of 
much later origin; and therefore to employ the Jewish lectionary 
in order to determine the day on which this took place is futile. 
On the other hand, there is no evidence that “Jesus takes the 
section which He lights upon as soon as it is unrolled”; for cipe 
quite as easily may mean the opposite ;—that He intentionally 
found a passage which had been previously selected. 


The more definite dvamrvéas (ND) is probably a correction of dvolfas 
(AB L and most versions). The former occurs nowhere in N.T., while the 
latter is very common: see esp. Rev. v. 2, 3, 4, 5, X. 2, 8, xx. 12. Fond as 
Lk. is of analytical tenses, fv yeypauevor occurs nowhere else in his writings : 
€ort yeypay. Is common in Jn. (ii. 17, vi. 31, 45, X- 34, Xil. 14, 16) 


18. The quotation is given by the Evangelist somewhat freely 
from LXX, probably from memory and under the influence of 
other passages of Scripture. To argue that the Evangelist cannot 
be S. Luke, because S. Luke was a Gentile, and therefore would 
not know the LXX, is absurd. S. Luke was not only a constant 
companion of S. Paul, but a fellow-worker with him in dealing 
with both Jews and Gentiles. He could not have done this 
without becoming familiar with the LXX. 

Down to dméoraAxey pe inclusive the quotation agrees with 
LXX. After that the text of LXX runs thus: idoacOa Tods cuvte- 
Tpypevous THv Kapdiay, KnpvEar aixwadrwrous adeow Kal Tupdois ava- 
Brau, KarX€écat évavtov Kupiov dextév. In many authorities the 
clause idcacOat tovs cuvtetpyspevous THY Kapdiay has been inserted 
into the text of Lk. in order to make the quotation more full and 
more in harmony with O.T. We have similar insertions Mt. xv. 
8; Acts vii. 37; Rom. xiii. 9; Heb. xiii. 20, and perhaps ii. 7.1 


1 Scrivener, Jz. to Crit. of N.T. i. pp. 12, 13, 4th ed. 
The evidence against the clause idcacOat . . . Thy kapdlay here (in § AQ of 
LXX 79 xapdig) is decisive. It isomicted by 8 BD LZ,13-69, 33, most MSS. of 


Iv. 18.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I2!I 


In the original the Prophet puts into the mouth of Jehovah’s ideal 
Servant a gracious message to those in captivity, promising them 
release and a return to the restored Jerusalem, the joy of which is 
compared to the joy of the year of jubilee. It is obvious that 
both figures, the return from exile and the release at the jubilee, 
admirably express Christ’s work of redemption. 

Mvedpa Kupiou ém ene. In applying these words to Himself the 
Christ looks back to His baptism. He is more than a Prophet; 
He is “the Son, the Beloved One,” of Jehovah (iii. 21, 22). 


With ém’ éué (€or) comp. Fv ém avrov (ii. 25).—od elvexev. Not “ where- 
fore,” as in Acts xix. 32, which here would spoil the sense, but ‘‘ because,” 
a meaning which otvexey often has in class. Grk. Vulg. has propter quod. 
Comp. Gen. xviii. 5, xix. 8, xxii. 16, xxxviil. 26; Num. x. 31, xiv. 43, etc. 
The Ionic form etvexev is found xviii. 29 ; Acts xxviii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. I0: 
but évexev is the commonest form (2 Cor. vii. 12), and évexa also occurs before 
consonants (vi. 22; Acts xxvi. 21). 


éxptcey pe. The Christ was anointed with the Spirit, as Pro- 
phets and priests were anointed with oil (1 Kings xix. 16; Ex. 
XXVIll. 41, xxx 30). Unlike wévys (2 Cor. ix. 9), mrwxds “always 
had a bad meaning until it was ennobled by the Gospels” (vi. 20, 
vil. 22; 2 Cor. vi. 10; Jas. ii. 5). It suggests abject poverty 
(xré0cw=“T crouch”). See Hatch, 8767. Gre. pp. 76, 77. 

améotahkey pe. Change from aor. to perf. “He anointed 
Me (once for all); He hath sent Me (and I am here)”: comp. 
t Cor. xv. 4. We have had dzoaréAAw of the mission of Gabriel 
(i. 19, 26); here and ver. 43 we have it of the mission of the 
Christ ; vii. 27 of the Forerunner ; ix. 2 of the Twelve. Whereas 
méumw is quite general and implies no special relation between 
sender and sent, drooré\Aw adds the idea of a delegated authority 
making the person sent to be the envoy or representative of the 
sender. But zéu7w also is used of the mission of the Christ (xx. 13), 
of Prophets (ver. 26, xx. 11, 12), and of the Apostles (Jn. xiii. 20, 
xx. 21). Strictly speaking, aixwahdétors means “prisoners of war” 
(aixuy and dAwrés): freq. in class. Grk. but here only in N.T. 
The cognate aiywadwrifw occurs xxi. 24; 2 Cor. x. 5; 2 Tim. iii. 
6; aixyzadwoia, Eph. iv. 8. Neither this metaphor nor that of 
tuddots avdéBAeyv harmonizes very well with the year of jubilee, to 
which Godet would restrict the whole passage. Both might apply 
to captives in exile, some of whom had been blinded by their 
captors, or by long confinement in a dungeon. 

Gmootethat TeOpaucpevous ev ddécer. These words come from 
another part of Isaiah (Iviii. 6), and are perhaps inserted through 
a slip of memory. Jesus was reading, not quoting without book; 
and therefore we cannot suppose that He inserted the clause. 


Lat. Vet. and best MSS. of Vulg., most MSS. of Boh. Aeth. Arm. Syr-Sin., 
Orig. Eus. etc., all the best editors and RV. See Sanday, App. ad N.T. p. 117. 


122 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 18-20, 


Lightfoot says that it was lawful to skip from one passage to an- 
other in reading the Prophets, but not in reading the Law (Hor. 
Feb. on Lk. iv. 17). That might explain the omission of a few 
verses, but not the going dack three chapters. The insertion 
comes from the Evangelist, who is probably quoting from memory, 
and perhaps regards the unconsciously combined passages as a 
sort of “programme of the ministry.” The strong express’on 
teQpauopevous is here applied to those who are shattered in fortune 
and broken in spirit. 


For the pregnant construction, ‘‘ send so as to be in,” comp. i. 17. The 
asyndeton throughout, first between éypicev and daéoradxev, and then be- 
tween the three infinitives which depend upon dméoradxev, is impressive. 


19. évautév Kupiou Sextév. The age of the Messiah, which is 
Jehovah’s time for bestowing great blessings on His people. 
Comp. kaupds dexrds (2 Cor. vi. 2; Is. xlix. 8): dexrds is not found 
in class. Grk. It is strange that Clement of Alexandria and 
Origen, who are commonly so ready to turn fact into figure, here 
turn an expression which is manifestly figurative into a literal 
statement of fact, and limit Christ’s ministry to a period of twelve 
months (comp. Clem. Hom. xvii. 19). Keim and other modern 
writers have made the same limit; but the three Passovers dis- 
tinguished by S. John (ii. 13, vi. 4, xi. 55) are quite fatal to it.? 
It is, however, an equally faulty exegesis to find the three years 
(ze. two years and a fraction) of Christ’s ministry in the three 
years of Lk. xiii. 6-9 or the three days of xiii. 31-33. The first of 
these is obviously a parabolic saying not to be understood literally; 
and the other probably is such. The suggestion that the three 
servants sent to the wicked husbandmen mean the three years of 
the ministry is almost grotesque. See Nosgen, Gesch. Jesu Christi, 
Kap. viii., Miinchen, 1890. ; 

20. The vivid description of what followed the reading of the lesson points 
to an eye-witness as the source of the narrative. But the ‘‘ closed” of AV. and 
RV. gives a wrong impression of the first incident: it leads one to think of a 
modern book with leaves. The Rhemish has “folded”; but ‘‘rolled up” 
would be a better rendering of wrvgas. The long strip of parchment, or less 
probably papyrus (2 Jn. 12), would be wound upon a roller, or possibly upon 
two rollers, one at each end of the strip. Hence the name megz//ah (volumen), 
from g&/al, ‘to roll.” Such a book was in Greek sometimes called kepaNis 
(Ezr. vi. 2; Ezek. iii. 1-3) or xepadis BiBdAlov (Heb. x. 7; Ps. xxxix. 8; Ezek. 
ii. 9): and it is said that xe@aAls originally meant the knob (cornu or umbzlecus) 
at the end of the roller ; but no instance of this use of xegadls appears to be 
known (Wsctt. on Heb. x. 7). 


Grodods TG Ennpérn. The dzro- implies that it was the minister or 
1Qn the uncertainty respecting the length of the ministry, and the con- 


jectures respecting it made by early Christians, see Iren, Hw. ii, 225; Eus. 
H. £. i. 10; Sanday in the Zxfosztor, ist series, xi. p. 16, 


Iv. 20, 21.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 123 


chazzan who had handed Him the book who received it dack again. 
The 7 may have the same meaning, just as ro B.8diov means the 
book which had been given to Him. But 76 iznpéry more prob- 
ably means the minister usually found in a synagogue. It was 
among the duties of the chazzan to take the Scriptures from the 
ark and put them away again (Surenhusius, dA/ishna, il. 246, 
iii. 266). He taught the children to read, and inflicted the 
scourgings (Mt. x. 17). A Roman epitaph to a Jew who held 
this office is quoted by Schiirer, II. ii. p. 66— 


®dafos IovAtavos vrnperys 
PdaBia IovAravyn Ovyarnp warpe 
Ev epyvn n Kounnots cov. 


‘The chazzan of the synagogue became the deacon or sub-deacon 
of the Christian Church. 


A wrnpérns is lit. ‘an under-rower” (épécow). The word may be used 
of almost any kind of attendant or servant (Acts v. 22, 26, xili. 5; Mt. 
xxvi. 58; Mk. xiv. 54, 65; Jn. vii. 32, 45; I Cor. iv. 1). For the two 
participles, m7vfas . . . daodovs, without kal, comp. Acts xii. 4, 25. 


éxd@icev. This was the usual attitude for expounding or 
preaching, and in the synagogues there was commonly a raised 
seat for the purpose. On other occasions we find Christ sitting 
to teach (v. 3; Mt. v. 1; Mk. iv. 1; [Jn. viii. 2]); and the 
disciples do the same (Acts xvi. 13). 

joav atevifovtes. ‘‘ Were fixed intently.” Their intense interest 
was caused by His reputation as a teacher and as a worker of 
miracles, as well as by His having been brought up amongst 
them ; perhaps also by His look and manner of reading. That 
He had selected an unexpected passage, or had omitted the usual 
lesson from the Law, and that this surprised them, is pure con- 
jecture. Comp. Acts vi. 15, where the same verb is used of the 
whole Sanhedrin riveting their eyes upon Stephen. It is a 
favourite word with Lk., who uses it a dozen times: elsewhere in 
N:T. only 2 Cor. i. 7, 13. It occurs in LXX (x Es. vi. 28; 
3 Mac. ii. 26), in Aq. (Job vii. 8), and in Jos. (2. 7. v. 12. 3). The 
analytical tense marks the continuance of the action. 

21. jp§ato Sé Ayer. The ypgaro is not pleonastic: it points 
to the solemnity of the moment when His words broke the silence 
of universal expectation: comp. vii. 24, xi. 29, xii. I, xiv. 18. 
What follows may be regarded as a summary of what was said. 
It gives us tne main subject of His discourse. We are led to 
suppose that He said much more; perhaps interpreting to them in 
detail the things concerning Himself (xxiv. 27). The conversation 
with Nicodemus is similarly condensed by S. John (iii. 1-21). 
Even without this narrative we should know from vii. 22 and Mt. 


124 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 21, 22. 


x1. 5 that Christ interpreted Is. Ixi. 1 ff. of Himself. The whole 
of the O.T. was to Him a prophecy respecting His life and work. 
And this applies not only to prophetic utterances, but also to rites 
and institutions, as well as to historical events, which were so 
ordered as to be a forecast of the salvation and judgment which 
He was to bring." 

1 yeadi attn. “This passage of Scripture” (Mk. xii. 10; Jn. 
vii. 42, etc.): for Scripture as a whole the plural is used (xxiv. 27, 
32, 453 Mt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29, xxvi. 54, 56; Mk. xii. 24, etc.) 
His interpretation of the prophecy was at the same time a fulfil- 
ment of it; for the voice of Him of whom the Prophet wrote 
was sounding in their ears. Hence it is that he affirms memAjpwrar 
év tots Gow buav. As Renan says, J/ ne préchait pas ses opinions, 
i se préchait luiméme. 


aA 


22. éuaptipouv aitd. “They bore witness to Him,” not that 


Cy 


what He said about Himself, but that what rumour had said 
respecting His power as a teacher, was true. They praised Him 
in an empty-hearted way. What they remembered of Him led 
them to think that the reports about Him were exaggerations ; but 
they were willing to admit that this was not the case. Comp. x1. 
48. This “bearing witness” almost of necessity implies that 
Jesus had said a great deal more than is recorded here. What 
follows shows that they did not believe the teaching which so 
startled and impressed them, any more than those whose attention 
was riveted on Stephen, before he began to address them, were 
disposed to accept his teaching. The cases are very similar. 
Hence éfavafov expresses amazement rather than admiration. 
For davyaley éxé see small print on ii. 33. 


tots Aéyous THS xapttos. Characterizing genitive or genitive of quality ; 
freq. in writings influenced by Hebrew, ‘‘ which employs this construction, not 
merely through poverty in adjectives, but also through the vividness of phrase- 
ology which belongs to Oriental languages (Win. xxxiv. 3- b, P. 297- Comp. 
olkovéuos TAS dOtklas (xvi. 8); Kpirijs THs ddcxlas (xvill. 6); axpoaris émuAnopovas 
(Jas. 1. 25); Kptrai diadoyiouay movnpay (Jas. ii. 4); and perhaps the difficult 
Tpowns amooklacua (Jas. i. 17). The meaning here is ‘* winning words.” The 
very first meaning of xdpis (xalpw) is ‘ “comeliness, winsomeness” (Hom. Od. 


1“Tesus acknowledged the Old Testament in its full extent and its perfect 
sacredness. The Scripture cannot be broken, He says (Jn. x. 35), and forthwith 
draws His argument from the wording of it. Of course He can only have 
meant by this the Scripture in the form in which it was handed down, and He 
must have regarded it exactly as His age did (comp. xi. 51). Any kind of 
superior knowledge in these matters would merely have made Him incapable of 
placing Himself on a level with His hearers respecting the use of Scripture, or 
would have compelled Him to empioy a far-reaching accommodation, the very 
idea of which involves internal untruthfulness. All, therefore, that is narrated 
in Scripture He accepted absolutely as actual history, and He regarded the 
several books as composed by the men to whom they were ascribed by tradition 7 
(B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. iii. 5, Eng. tr. ii. pp. 62, 63). 


IV. 22, 23.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 125 


viii. 175; Eccles. x. 12; Ps. xliv. 3; Ecclus. xxi. 16, xxxvii. 21; Col. iv. 6): 
and in all these passages it is the winsomeness of /angwage that is specially 
signified. From this objective attractiveness it easily passes to subjective 
“favour, kindness, goodwill,” esp. from a superior to an inferior (Acts ti. 47 ; 
Gen. xviii. 3, xxxii. 5, xxxiii. 8, etc.); and hence, in particular, of finding 
*€ favour” with God (i. 30; Acts vii. 46; Exod. xxxili. 12, 13, 16, etc.). From 
the sense of God’s favour generally (ii. 40, 52; Jn. i. 14, 16) we come to the 
specially theological sense of ‘‘God’s favour to sinners, the free gift of His 
grace” (Acts xiv. 3, xx. 24, 32; and the Pauline Epp. fasszm). Lastly, it 
sometimes means the ‘‘gratitude” which this favour produces in the recipient 
(vi. 32-34, xvii. 9; 1 Cor. x. 30). The word does not occur in Mt. or Mk. 
See Sanday on Rom. i. 5, and Blass on Acts ii. 47 and iv. 33. 

Origen evidently had this passage in his mind when he wrote: ‘‘ For a proof 
that grace was poured on His lips (Ps. xliv. 3, Eexv0n  xapis ev xeldeoly cov) 
is this, that although the period of His teaching was short,—for He taught 
somewhere about a year and a few months,—the world has been filled with His 
teaching” (De Prim. iv. 1. 5). But the words so calculated to win did not win 
the congregation. They were ‘‘ fulfilled in their ears,” but not in their hearts.} 
A doubt at once arose in their minds as to the congruity of such words with one 
whom they had known all His life as the ‘‘son of Joseph” the carpenter. 
Here odros has a contemptuous turn, as often (v. 21, vil. 39, 49, xv. 2, xxii. 56, 
59, etc.): yet the Vulg. in none of these places has zs¢e, but Azc. ‘‘Is not this 
person Joseph’s son? What does he mean by using such language?” Just as 
a single sentence is given as a summary of His discourse, so a single question is 
given as a summary of their scepticism. 

While the od7os and vids is in all three, the question as a whole differs. Mk. 
has Ovy odds dori 6 TéxTwv, 6 vids THs Maplas ; (vi. 3). Mt. has Ovx odrés éorw 
6 Tod Téxrovos vids; (xiii. 55). Lk. Ovxl vids dorw "Iwoid ofros; And while 
the others mention Christ’s brothers and sisters in close connexion with His 
mother, Lk. mentions none of them. Lk. and Jn. seem to prefer the expres- 
sion ‘‘son of Joseph ” (Lk. ili. 23, iv. 22; Jn. i. 45, vi. 42). Renan thinks that 
Mare ne connatt pas Joseph (V. de J. p. 71). But it may be that, as he does 
not record the virgin birth of Christ, he avoids the expression ‘‘son of Joseph ” 
or ‘‘the carpenter’s son,” which those who have recorded the virgin birth could 
use without risk of being misunderstood, 


23. Mdvtws épeité por thy wapaBohhy tadtyv. “ At all events, 
assuredly, ye will say,” etc.: waytws is used in strong affirmations 
(Acts xxl. 22, xxvilil. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 10). Excepting Heb. ix. 9 and xi. 
19, tapaZody occurs only in the Synoptic Gospels: in Jn. x. 6 and 
Xvi. 25, 29, aS in 2 Pet. ii. 22, the word used is rapounio. It need 
not be doubted that the notion of placing Jeszde for the sake of 
comparison, rather than that of merely putting forth, lies at the root 
of zapaBoAn. From the notion of (1) “throwing beside” come 
the further notions of (2) “exposing” and (3) “comparing,” all 
three of which are common meanings of wapa8ddXew. While the 
adj. awapaBodos represents the derived notion on the one side, the 
subst. rapaZoA7 represents that on the other side. A zapafoAn, 
therefore, is “an utterance which involves a comparison.” Hence 
various meanings: 1. a complete parable or allegory (viii. 4, xiii. 6, 


1 Comp. Augustine’s description of his indifference to the preaching ot 
Ambrose, although charmed with his winning style: Rerum incurzosus et con: 
temptor adstabam et delectabar suavitate sermonis (In Ezek. xxxiii. 32). 


126 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _[IV. 28. 


etc.) ; 2. a single figurative saying, proverb, or illustration (here ; 
v. 36, Vi. 30) 3: 3.4 saying of deeper meaning, which becomes in- 
telligible through comparison, in which sense it is sometimes joined 
with ckorewvds Adyos (Prov. i. 6), tpdBAnpua (Ps. xlix. 5) Ixxviii. 2), 
and the like. In the teaching of Christ zapaBoAy is commonly 
used in the first sense, and is a means of making known the 
mysteries of the kingdom in a mixed audience; for it conceals 
from the unworthy what it reveals to the worthy (viii. 9, 10). See 
Crem. Lex. pp. 124, 657; Hatch, B26/. Grk., p. 70; Hase, Gesch. 
Jesu, § 63, p. 535, ed. 1891; Didon, /ésus Christ, ch. vi. p. 391, 
ed. 1891; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, ch. x. 

‘latpé, Qepdmeucov ceautdy. ‘‘ Heal thine own lameness” is the 
Hebrew form of the proverb. Similar sayings exist in other litera- 
tures: ¢.g. a fragment of Euripides, aAAwv iarpds, atrés eAxeot 
Bptwv ; Ser. Sulpicius to Cicero, Wegue imitare malos medicos, qui 
in alienis morbis profitentur tenere se medicine scientiam, ipst se 
curare non possunt (Cie. Fp. ad aivers0s, i iv. 5). Hobart quotes 
from Galen, éxpnv ouv avrov €avToU TPWOTOov iao Oar 70 ovprTwpa Kat 
ovrus érixetpety Erépous Oepareverv. Comp. Aesch. P. V. 469; Ov. 
Metam. vii. 561 ; and the other examples in Lightfoot and Wetst. 
It is remarkable that this saying of Christ is preserved only by 
the beloved physician. Its meaning is disputed. Some take the 
words which follow to be the explanation of it: “ Heal the ills of 
thine own town.” Thus Corn. 4 Lap., “Cure Thine own people 
and Thine own country, which should be as dear to Thee as Thyself.” 
Similarly Beng. Alf. Sadler and others. It is thus made to mean 
much the same as “Charity begins at home.” But tatpe and 
ceavrov Ought to be interpreted of the same person or group; not 
one of a person and the other of his neighbours. “ Prophet, 
heal Thine own countrymen” is not parallel to “ Physician, heal 
Thyself.” The saying plainly refers to the passage just read from 
Isaiah ; and although Lk. omits the words “to heal the broken- 
hearted,” -yet Christ must have read them, and He had probably 
explained them. He professed to be the fulfilment of them, and 
to be healing the miseries of mankind. The people are supposed 
to tell Him to better His own condition before bettering that of 
others. He must make His own position more secure, and give 
evidence of His high mission before asserting it. He must work 
convincing miracles, such as He is sazd to have worked elsewhere. 
Comp. cacov seavtév kat Hpds (xxiii. 39). 

dca qkovcapev. They do not say dca 2rotyoas, wishing to leave 
it open whether the report may not de untrue. We learn from 
Jn. ii. 12 that after the miracle at Cana, Jesus was at Capernaum 
for a short time ; and from John ii. 23, that there were many unre- 
corded miracles. It is probably to reports of some of these that 
reference is here made. For the constr.comp. Acts vii. 12and xxiv. 10. 


IV. 23--25° THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 127 


els thy Kadapvaotp. See on ver. 31. The readings vary between els 
thy Kad. (SB), eis Kad. (D L), & 77 Kad. (x), and & Kag. (AK). The 
substitution of é for els, and the omission of the article between a preposition 
and a proper name, are obvious corrections by a later hand. The els is not 
“put for év.” It may be doubted whether these two prepositions are ever 
interchanged. Rather els is used because of the idea of motion contained in 
** come to -” It is scarcely possible that els contgins the notion of “‘to 
the advantage of,” and indicates the petty jealousy of the people of Nazareth. 
We have the same constr. i. 44; Acts xxviii. 6 (comp. Lk. xi. 7); and in no 
case is there any idea of advantage. That the jealousy was a fact, and that 
the people of Nazareth were inclined to discount or discredit all that seemed 
_ to tell in favour of prosperous Capernaum, is probable ; but there is no hint 
of this in the els. What is said to have happened f Capernaum ought to 
happen ere. Comp. the Commish use of ‘‘to” for “fat.” In N.T. dée is 
never ‘‘ thus,” but either ‘‘ hither” (ix. 41, xiv. 21, xix. 27) or ‘‘ here” (ix. 
33, xxii. 38). The & ry warplé cov is epexegetic of Sde, and means ‘* Thy 
native town,” not the whole of Israel: comp. Mk. vi. 5; Mt. xiii. 58. 


24, Etwev 8¢. When these words occur between two utter- 
ances of Christ, they seem to indicate that there is an interval 
between what precedes and what follows. The report of what 
was said on this occasion is evidently very condensed. Comp. 
Vi. 39, Xi. 16, xv. II, XVii. I, 22, xvill. 9, and see on i: 8. The 
dé is “but” (Cov.) rather than. “and” (all other English Versions) ; 
ait autem (Vulg.). “ But, instead of gratifying them, He said.” 
There are various proverbial sayings which declare that those who 
are close to what is great do not appreciate the greatness. Jesus 
declares that He is no exception to this rule, and implies that He 
will work no miracles to free Himself from its operation. In the 
wilderness He had resisted a similar suggestion that He should 
work a miracle of display, a mere répas (vv. 9-11). In this matter 
Nazareth is a type of the whole nation, which rejected Him 
because He did not conform to their own ideas of the Messiah. 
Their test resembles that of the hierarchy, “He is the King of 
Israel ; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will 
believe Him” (Mt. xxvii. 42). Eizev dé is peculiar to Lk. (i. 13). 

25. “But I am like the Prophets, not only in the treatment 
which I receive from My own people, but also in My principles of 
action. For they also bestowed their miraculous benefits upon 
outsiders, although there were many of their own people who 
would have been very glad of such blessings.” Christ is here 
appealing to their knowledge of Scripture, not to any facts out- 
side the O.T.  TZestatur hoc Dominus ex luce omniscientiz suz 
is not a legitimate inference. Arguments drawn from what was 
known to Him, but not known to them, would not be likely to 
influence His audience. Note as = “ when.” 


éw GAnfetas. ‘On a basis of truth”: comp. Mk. xii. 14. We have 
similar adverbial expressions in éx’ tons (se. polpas), éwl cxodFs, éxl Kacpod, 
éx’ déclas. 


128 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _ [IV. 25-28, 


émt érn tpta Kal pivas €&. Jesus, 'ike His brother James (Jas. 
v. 17), follows Jewish tradition as to the duration of the famine. 
In 1 Kings xviii. t we are told that the rain came in the third 
year, which would make the drought about wo years and a half. 
But ever since the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, three 
years and a half (=42 months=1260 days) had become the 
traditional duration of times of great calamity (Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7; 
Rey. xi. 2, 3, xii. 6, 14, xiii. 5). The Jews would regard “in the 
third year” as covering three years, and would argue that the 
famine must have continued for some time after the rain came. 


For éml ¢. acc. of duration of time (‘‘ over,” ¢.¢. “‘ during”), comp. Acts 
xiii. 31, xix. 10; Hdt. ili. 59. 2, vi. 101. 3; Thuc. ii. 25. 4. Heb. xi. 30 is 
different. In accordance with common usage Acués is here masc. ; but in 
xv. 14 and Acts xi. 28 it is fem. acc. to what is called Doric usage, as in the 
Megarean of Aristoph. Acharn. 743. But this usage occurs elsewhere in late 
Greek. It perhaps passed from the Doric into the Kowh Addexros: for 
examples see Wetst. and L. and S. Zex. In LXX perhaps only 1 Kings xviii. 2. 


éml tacav thy yyv. Here, as in Jas. v. 17, only the land of 
Israel need be understood ; but it is possible that in each case we 
have a popular hyperbole, and that the whole world is meant. 
Lk. xxi. 23 and Rom. ix. 28 are not quite parallel, for there the 
context plainly limits the meaning. Lk. xxiii. 44 is another 
doubtful case, and there AV. has “earth” and RV. “land.” 
Both have “land” here. 


26. The translation of ef yu in this and the following clauses by ‘‘ but 
only ” (RV.), sed (Beza), or sed tantum, is justifiable, because ‘‘ save” (AV.) 
and zsz (Vulg.) seem to involve an absurdity which was not apparent to a 
Greek. It is not, however, correct to say that in such cases el 7 is put for 
add, any more than in Mt. xx. 23 or Mk. iv. 22 it would be correct to say 
that é\Ad is put for ef w7. Here and in Mt. xii. 4 (comp. Rom. xiv. 14; 
1 Cor. vii. 17; Gal. i. 7, ii. 16) ‘‘ the question is not whether el mw retains 
its exceptive force, for this it seems always to do, but whether the exception 
refers to the whole clause or to the verb alone” (Lft. on Gal. i. 19): comp. 
Rev. xxi. 27.—In els Zdperra, x.7.d.. we perhaps have a quotation from LXX 
of 1 Kings xvii. 9. There, as here, the readings vary between 2dGvos and 
Didwrlas (sc. y7s or x@pas). Here the latter is right, meaning the zerrzzory of 
Sidon, in which Sarepta lay. Zarephath (in Syriac Zsazfah, in Greek 
Zdpedba, Zdpewra, and Zépha) is probably represented by the modern 
Stirafend on the coast road between Tyre and Sidon. 

27. éwi’EXucatov. For this use of él with a proper name to give a date, 
‘Cin the time of,” comp. iii. 2; Acts xi. 28; 1 Mac. xiii. 42, xiv. 27; 2 Mac. 
xv. 22. The spelling “EA:ooatos is not well attested (WH. ii. App. p. 159). 
For some of the ‘‘ many lepers” comp. 2 Kings vii. 3, where we have four at 
the gate of Samaria. In N.T. Zvpios is the only form of the adj. that is 
found, viz. here and perhaps Mk. vii. 26 ; but Zvpos, Dvpros, and Dupiaxés occur 
elsewhere (Hdt. ii. 104. e ; Aesch. Pers. 83; Theophr. C. P. ii. 17. 3). 


28. érdjoOncav wévtes Oupod. See on i. 66. They see the 
point of His illustrations; He has been comparing them to those 
Jews who were judged less worthy of Divine benefits than the 


IV. 28-30.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 129 


heathen. It is this that infuriates them, just as it infuriated the 
Jews at Jerusalem to be told by S. Paul that the heathen would 
receive the blessings which they despised (Acts xiii. 46, 50, xxii. 
21, 22). Yet to this day the position remains the same; and 
Gentiles enjoy the Divine privileges of which the Jews have 
deprived themselves. His comparing Himself to such Prophets 
as Elijah and Elisha would add to the wrath of the Nazarenes 
On the other hand, these early instances of God’s special blessings 
being conferred upon heathen, would have peculiar interest for Lk 
29. €ws dpptos tod Spous. Tradition makes the scene of this 
attempt to be a precipice, varying from 80 to 300 feet in height, 
which exists some distance off to the S.E. of the town; and we 
read that “they cast Him owf of the town and led Him as far as 
the brow,” etc. But modern writers think that a much smaller 
precipice close at hand is the spot. Wan der Velde conjectures 
that it has crumbled away ; Conder, that it is hidden under some 
of the houses. Stanley says that Nazareth “is built ‘upon,’ that 
is, on the side of, ‘a mountain’; but the ‘brow’ is not beneath, 
but over the town, and such a cliff as is here implied is to be found, 
as all modern travellers describe, in the abrupt face of the lime- 
stone rock, about 30 or 4o feet high, overhanging the Maronite 
Convent at the S.W. corner of the town” (Siz. & Pai. p. 367). 
So also Robinson (Res. im Pal. ii. pp. 325, 330), Hacket (D.Z. ii. 
p- 470), and Schulz in Herzog (PREZ.? x. p. 447). The é¢' of, of 
course, refers to Tod dpous, not to édpvos. Both AV. and RV. have 
“ the brow of the hill whereon,” which might easily be misunder- 
stood. The town is on the hill, but not on the brow of it: the 
brow is above the modern village. Nowhere else in N.T. does 
éppvs occur. Comp. Hom. //. xx. 151; and d¢dpvdes, Z7. xxii. 411, 
and Hdt. v. 92. 10, with other instances in Wetst. Susercilium is 
similarly used: Virg. Georg. i. 108; Liv. xxvii. 18, xxxiv. 29. 
Gore kataxpypvioat. The dove is not needed (i. 22; Mt. ii. 2, xx. 28; 
Acts v. 31); but it expresses more clearly the result which was intended. 
Comp. xx. 20, where, as here, éore has been altered in some texts into the 
simpler els 76, a constr. which Lk. does not employ elsewhere. In ix. 52 the 
true reading is perhaps &s; but in Mt. x. I, xxiv. 24, xxvii. 1 there is no doubt 
about the ®ore. For xataxpnuvifw (here only in N.T.) comp. 2 Chron. 
xxv. 12; 2 Mac. xii. 15, xiv. 43; 4 Mac. iv. 25; Jos. Amt. vi. 6. 2, ix. 9. I. 


The whole attempt to put Jesus to death was perhaps an instance of the form 
of punishment which the Jews called the ‘‘rebel’s beating,” which was some- 
what analogous to Lynch Law. The ‘“‘rebel’s beating” was administered by 
the people, without trial and on the spot, when anyone was caught in what 
seemed to be a flagrant violation of some law or tradition. Comp. the attempts 
to stone Jesus (Jn. vill. 59, x. 31). We havea similar attempt upon S. Paul’s 
life (Acts xxi. 31, 32). In S. Stephen’s case a formal trial seems to have ended 
in the “‘rebel’s beating” (Edersh. The Temple, p. 43). 


830. adtés Sé Srey 814 pecou attav éwopedeto, “But He (in 
9 


130 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 80, 81. 


contrast to this attempt), after passing through the midst of them, 
went His way.” The addition of 6:4 péocov is for emphasis, and 
seems to imply that there was something miraculous in His 
passing through the very midst of those who were intending to 
slay Him, and seemed to have Him entirely in their power. They 
had asked for a miracle, and this was the miracle granted to them. 
Those who think that it was His determined look or personal 
majesty which saved Him, have to explain why this did not 
prevent them from casting Him out of the synagogue! It seems 
better with Meyer and ancient commentators to understand a 
miracle dependent on the will of Jesus: comp. Jn. xviii. 6; Dan. 
vi. 22. Jn. vill. 59 is different: then Jesus hid Himself before 
escaping. For 8vedv see on ii. 15. - 

émopeveto. Here used in its common signification of going on 
towards a goal: “ He went His way” to Capernaum. And, so far 
as we know, He did not return to Nazareth. It had become a 
typical example of “His own people receiving Him not” (Jn. 
i. 11); and apparently it had no other opportunity (but see 
Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. ch. xxvii.) If Mk. vi. 1-6 and Mt. xiii. 
53-58 refer to a different occasion, it probably preceded this. 
After the attempt on His life He would not be likely to return; 
and, if He did return, they could hardly, after this experience of 
Him, ask, “ Whence has this man this wisdom?” or be astonished 
at His teaching. 


Meyer (on Mt. xiii. 53), Wieseler (Chron. Syn. iii. 2, Eng. tr. p. 258), Godet 
(Zc., Eng. tr. i. p. 240), Tischendorf (Syzop. Evan. §§ 29, 54), and others dis- 
tinguish the two occasions. If with Caspari (Chron. Int. § 100) we identify 
them, then Lk. is the more full and vivid, for the others omit the text of the 
discourse and the attempt to kill Him. In this case Strauss may be right in sup- 
posing that Lk. has placed the incident at the beginning of the ministry, although 
it took place later, because he saw how typical it was of the ministry as a whole © 
(Leben Jesu, p. 121, 1864). That it was this attempt on His life which made 
Christ change His abode from Nazareth to Capernaum is contradicted by ver. 
16. ‘‘ Where He had been brought up ” implies that He had ceased to reside 
‘here: and from ver. 23 we infer that Capernaum had already become His 
headquarters. hither His Mother and brethren had also moved, while His 
sisters remained at Nazareth (Mt. xiii. 56; Mk. vi. 3), very probably because 
they had married there. 


81-44, The Stay at Capernaum: chiefly a Record of Miracles 
of Healing. See Wsctt. Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles, 
Macmillan, 1859 ; Lutroduction to the Study of the Gospels, App. 
E: “A Classification of the Gospel Miracles,” Macmillan, 1888. 

81-37. The Healing of a Demoniac in the Synagogue at Caper- 


1 Even Godet is among these. La majesté de sa personne et la fermeté de 
son regard imposerent & ces furieux. L’historie raconte plusieurs traits sem- 
blables (i. p. 327, 3eme ed.). Better Didon: Une force divine le gardait 
(p. 312, ed. 1891). See Hase, Gesch. Jesu, p. 445, ed. 1891. 


IV. 81.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 131 


naum. Mk. i. 21-28. Both Lk. and Mk. place this first among 
Christ’s miracles; whereas Mt. puts the healing of a leper first 
(viii. 2-4). Marcion began his mutilated edition of Lk. at this 
point with the words ‘O @EO’S xar7jAbev cis Kadapvaovp. The 
earlier portion, which teaches the humanity of Christ, he omitted, 
excepting the first clause of iii. 1 (Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 7. 1). 

81. katqGev. Nazareth is on higher ground than Capernaum, 
which was on the shore of the lake; and therefore “went down” 
or “came down” is the probable meaning. But it is possible that 
here and Acts xviii. 5 it means “returned,” as often in class. Grk. 
(Hdt. iv. 4. 2, v. 30. 4; Thuc. viii. 68. 3). Excepting Jas. iit. 
15, the verb occurs in N.T. only in Lk. (ix. 37 and twelve times 
in Acts). 


Kadapvaovp. This is the correct spelling, Caphar-Nahum, of which 
Kazrepvaovm is a Syrian corruption (WH. ii. App. p. 160). It was the chief jeoth 
town, as Tiberias was the chief Roman town, of the neighbourhood. It was 
therefore a good centre, especially as traders from all parts frequently met 
there (Mk. ii. 15, iii. 20, 32, etc.). It is not mentioned in O.T., and perhaps 
was not founded till after the Exile. Josephus mentions it only once, viz. in his 
description of the lake (2. /. iii. 10. 7, 8), and then not as a town but asa 
my) yov.uwrdrn, which irrigates the neighbourhood: but there is no doubt that 
the Kegapydépuy, to which Josephus was carried, when he was thrown from his 
horse in a skirmish with Roman troops, is Capernaum (V2fa, 72). The identi- 
fication with the modern 7e// Hm (Nau, Pococke, Burckhardt, Renan,? Ritter, 
Rédiger, Ewald) is possible, but not certain. Many advocate the claims of 
Khan Minyeh, which is three miles to the south (Quaresmius, Keim, Robinson, 
Sepp, Stanley, Strauss, Wilson). For the chief arguments see Wilson in D.&.? 
i. p. 530, and in P2cturesque Palestine, ii. p. 81; Schulz in Herzog, RZ.? vii. 
p. 501; Keim, Jes. of Waz., Eng. tr. ii. p. 369; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 
221-239, ed. 1892. The doubts about the site show how completely the woes 

ronounced upon the place (Mt. xi. 23) have been fulfilled. But in any case 
esus left the seclusion of the mountains for a busy mercantile centre by the lake. 


woh THs Fadtdatas. Lk. adds this, because this is the first 
time that he mentions Capernaum in his narrative. The explana- 
tion could not be made ver. 23. It is another small indication 
that he is writing for those who are not familiar with the geography 
of Palestine: comp. 1. 26, ii. 4, vili. 26. 

Hy S8doKxwv attods év tots codBBaow. Some make vv. 31, 32a 
general introduction, stating the habitual practice, of which vz. 
33-37 gave a particular instance. In support of this they urge 
the analytical tense, jv diddoxwy, and the plur. tots caBBaow: 
“He used to teach them on the sabbath days.” But in the 
parallel passage édédacxev and jv Sdidacxwy are equivalent, and 

10Of the czng petztes villes dont Phumanité parlera eternellement autant que 
de Rome et d Athenes, Renan considers the identification of Magala (Medjde/) 
alone as certain. Of Capharnahum, Chorazin, Dalmanutha, and Bethsaida he 
says, // est douteux qu'on arrive jamais sur ce sol profondement dévasté, a fixer 
tes places o% Chumanité voudrait venir baiser Tempreinte de ses pieds (Vie da 
Jésus, p. 142). 


132 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |Iv. 31-383. 


apparently refer to one occasion only (note the <i@vs, Mk. i. 22, 2 3): 
and 7a cafBara is often sing. in meaning (Mt. xxviii. 1; Col. 11. 
16; Exod. xx. 10; Lev. xxiii. 32; Jos. Avi. 1. ij) me OGmeer 
Hor. Sat. i. 9. 69). Acts xvii. 2 is the only place in N.T. in which 
odf8Bara is plur. in meaning, and there a numeral necessitates it, 
émt oafBatra tpia; which, however, may mean “for three weeks,” 
and not “ for three sabdaths.” Syr-Sin. here has “the sabbath days.” 


The Aramaic form of the word ends in a, the transliteration of which into 
Greek looked like a neut. plur. This idea was confirmed by the fact that 
Greek festivals are commonly neut. plur.: ra yevéow, éyxalvia, mavabjvasa, 
k.T.A. Hence od8B8ara may either mean “<a sabbath” or ‘sabbaths” or “a 
week.” Here it is better to retain the sing. meaning, and refer the whole of 
32-37 to one occasion. In N.T. od$Bacw is the usual form of the dat. plur., 
with caS8dros as v./. in some authorities (in B twice, Mt. xii. 1,12). In 
LXX oaSS8dros prevails. Josephus uses both. 


82. év éfoucia Fv 6 Néyos adtod. This does not refer to the 
power which His words had over the demoniac, but to the authority 
with which they came home to the consciences of His hearers. 
The healing of the demoniac was not so much an example of this 
éfovoia as evidence that He had a Divine commission to exercise 
it. Lk. omits the comparison with the formal and ineffectual 
teaching of the scribes (Mk. i. 22; Mt. vii. 29). 


The é means “‘clothed in, invested with” (i. 17, iv. 36, xi. 15, 18, 19, 
20, xx. 2, 8; I Cor. ii. 4; Eph. vi. 2; 2 Thes. il. 9). This use of éy is freq. 
in late Grk. Green, Gram. of N.T. p. 206. 


833. év TH ocuvaywyq. “In the synagogue” in which He was 
teaching on that sabbath; which confirms the view that ver. 31 
refers to a particular occasion. We have already been told that it 
was His practice to teach in the synagogues. But “in the syna- 
gogue” may mean in the only one which Capernaum possessed 
oe tvedpa Satpoviou dkaQdptov. The phrase is unique, and 
the exact analysis of it is uncertain. The gen. may be of apposi- 
tion (ii. 41, xxii. 1; Jn. ii, 21, xi. 13, xiii. x), or of quality (see on 
ver. 22), or of possession, z.é. an influence which belonged to an 
unclean demon (Rev. xvi. 14). As to the Evangelists’ use of the 
epithet dxafaprov, strange mistakes have been made. Wordsworth 
inaccurately says, “Both St. Mark and St. Luke, writing for Gentiles, 
add the word axafaprov to dapoviov, which St. Matthew, writing to 
Jews (for whom it was not necessary), ever does.” Alford in 
correcting him is himself inaccurate. He says, “ The real fact is, 
that St. Mark uses the word dauémov thirteen times, and never 
adds the epithet axd@aprov to it (his word here is zvedpa only) ; 
St. Luke, eighteen times, and only adds it this once. So much 
for the accuracy of the data on which inferences of this kind are 


IV. 88, 84.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 133 


founded.” Edersheim is still more inaccurate in his statement of 
the facts (Z. & 7. i. p.479n). Farrar has the strange misstate- 
ment that “the word ‘unclean’ is peculiar to St. Luke, who writes 
for Gentiles.” It occurs in Mt., Paul, and Apoc., as well as Mk. 
The facts are these. Mt. uses daudvoy ten times, and has 
&xdOaprov twice as an epithet of zvedia. Mk. has dapodrioy thirteen 
times, and axd@aprov eleven times as an epithet of mvedua. Lk. in 
the Gospel has dapoviov twenty-two times, with d«dfaprov as an 
epithet, once of daydviov, and once of wvcdua; and with rovnpov 
twice as an epithet of rvedua. In the Acts he has daudvov once ; 
and uses dxafaprov twice, and zovypéy four times, as an epithet of 
avedpa. ‘The fact, therefore, remains, that the two Evangelists who 
wrote for Gentiles (to whom demons or spirits were indifferent) 
add a distinctive epithet much more often than the one who wrote 
for Jews (who distinguished evil spirits from good). Moreover, 
both Mk. and Lk. add this epithet the very first time that they 
mention these beings (Mk. i. 23; Lk. iv. 33); whereas Mt. men- 
tions them several times (vii. 22, vili. 16, ix. 33, 34) before he adds 
the dxdOaprov (x. 1). In this passage Lk. and Mk. describe the 
fact of possession in opposite ways. Here the man has the unclean 
spirit. There he is in the unclean spirit’s power, év mvevpare 
dxabdpry : with which we may compare the expression of Josephus, 
rors id THv daipoviwy AapPavopevors (Ant. vill. 2. 5). Similarly, 
we say of a man that “he is out of his mind,” or that “his mind 
is gone” out of him. That a man thus afflicted should be in the 
synagogue is surprising. He may have come in unobserved ; or 
his malady may have been dormant so long as to have seemed to 
be cured. The presence of “the Holy One of God” provokes a 
crisis. For évéxpagev comp. Josh. vi. 5; 1 Sam. iv. 5; and for 
dova peydhy see on 1. 42. 

84. “Ea. Probably not the imperative of éaw, “ Let alone, leave 
me in peace,” but an interjection of anes or dismay ; common in 
Attic poetry, but rare in prose (Aesch. P. V. 298, 688; Eur. ec. 
501; Plato, Prot. 314 D). Here only in N.T. Comp. Job iv. 
19 a xv. 16, xix. 5, xxv. 6. Fritzsche on Mk. i. 24 (where the word 
is an interpolation) and L. and S. Zex. regard the imperative as the 
origin of the interjection, which does not seem probable. 

ti fpiv Kat cot; Not “What have we to contend about?” a 
meaning which the phrase has nowhere in N.T. and perhaps only 
once, if at all, in O.T. (2 Chron. xxxv. 21), but “ What have we in 
common?” Comp. vill. 28; Mt. viii. 29; Mk. i. 24; Jn. ii. 4; 
Judg. xi. 12; 1 Kings xvii. 18; 2 Kings ili. 13; 2 Sam. xvi. 10; 
1 Esdr. i. 26; Epict. Déss. i. 1. 16, i. 27. 13, ii. 9. 16. 

*"Inood Neteeny’ This form of the adjective is found xxiv. 19; Mk. i. 


24, X. 47, xiv. 67, xvi. 6; but not in Mt. or Jn. or Acts. Its appearance 
here is no proof that Lk. is borrowing from Mk. Nafwpaios occurs Lk. xviii. 


134 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |IV. 34, 35 


37; Mt. ii. 23, xxvi. 713 Jn. xviii. 5, 7, xix. 19; Acts ii. 22, iii. 6, iv. 10, 
vi. 14, xxii. 8, xxvi. 9; but not in Mk. The adjective, esp. Nafwpaios, 
which is used in the title on the cross, sometimes has a tinge of contempt ; 
and with the article it may be rendered ‘‘the Nazarene.” Hence the early 
Christians were contemptuously called ‘‘the Nazarenes” (Acts xxiv. 5). Con- 
trast 6 dwd Natapér (Mt. xxi. 11; Mk. i. 9; Jn. i. 46; Acts x. 38), which 
is a mere statement of fact. It is worth noting that this demoniac, who is a 
Jew, addresses Jesus as ‘‘of Nazareth,” which the Gerasene, who was Zosszbly 
a heathen, does not do (viii. 28). 


HdOes aaohdoor Hpas; The nuds and the preceding jpiv prob- 
ably do not include the man, but rather other evil spirits. Com- 
munem inter se causam habent demonia (Beng.). It seems to be 
idle to speculate as to the meaning of doAéoo.: apparently it is 
the same as eis tHv 4Burcov aedOeiv (Vili. 31). 

odd oe Tis et, 6 Gyros TOU Ocod. In Mk. otdaper, which is more 
in harmony with juiv and judas. Godet remarks that 6 dyos tov 
@cod explains the knowledge. It was instinctive, and therefore 
oida is more suitable than ywooxw. L’antipathie nest pas moins 
clairvoyante que la sympathie. In the unique holiness of Jesus the 
evil spirit felt an essentially hostile power. The expression 6 dytos 
tod @eod occurs in the parallel in Mk. and Jn. vi. 69; but nowhere 
else: comp. Acts iv. 27; 1 Jn. il. 20; Rev. ili. 7. It may mean 
either ‘‘ consecrated fo God” or “consecrated 4y God.” In a lower 
sense priests and Prophets are called dyvo: tod @eod or Kupiov (Ps. 
cvi. 16). It was not in flattery (#ale adulans, as Tertullian says) 
that the evil spirit thus addressed Him, but in horror. From the 
Holy One he could expect nothing but destruction (Jas. ii. 19; 
comp. Mt. viii. 29). 

35. émetipnoev ait. “He rebuked the demon” who had used 
the man as his mouth-piece. The verb is often used of rebuking 
violence (ver. 41, Vili. 24, 1x. 42; Mt. viii. 26, xvii. 18; Mk. iv. 39; 
Jude 9); yet must not on that account be rendered “restrain” 
(Fritzsche on Mt. viii. 26, p. 325). 


In N.T. émityzdw has no other meaning than ‘‘rebuke”; but in class. 
Grk. it means—1. “‘lay a value on, rate”; 2. “lay a penalty on, sentence” 
3. ‘chide, vate, rebuke.” But while there is a real connexion between the 
first and third meanings of the Greek verb, in English we have a mere 
accident of language: ‘‘ rate” = ‘‘ value” is a different word from “‘rate” = 
“scold.” Note that Christ required no faith of demoniacs, 


SipdOyr. Lit. “Stop thy mouth with a gids, be muzzled”: 
used literally 1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18; and as here, Mt. xxii. 12; 
Mk. i. 25, iv. 39; Jos. B. J. 1. 22-53.5) Lhe peculiar infin. gipoiv 
occurs 1 Pet. ii. 15. Comp. drodcxaroty (Heb. vii. 5); Katacxyvotv 
(Mt. xiii, 32; Mk. iv. 32). The verb is probably a vernacular 
word: it is not found between Aristoph. (Vu. 592) and LXX 
(Kennedy, Sources of V.T. Grk. p. 41). 


IV. 35-37.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 135 


Kat @&ehOe dr’ aitov. This is the true reading. Other writers commonly 
have é&épyouat éx; but Lk. prefers éEépxouar dé (ver. 41, v. 8, vili. 2, 20, 
33, 35, 38, ix. 5, xi. 24, etc.). 

plipay adtév . . . pndev BAday adtéy. ‘‘ Having thrown him” 
down in convulsions (orapégov Mk.). . . without (as one might 
have expected) having injured him at all.” With ovdé BAdwpay we 
should have had a mere statement of fact. But in N.T we com- 
monly have py with participles: comp. xi. 24, xii. 47,and see Win. 
lv. 5. 6, p.607. For pndev BAdWav Mk. has duvicay dovi peyadn. 
It was the convulsions and the loud cry which made the spectators 
suppose that the man had been injured. The malice of the demon 
made the healing of the man as painful as possible. Hobart 
classes both fizrew and BAamrew as medical words, the one being 
used of convulsions, the latter of injury to the system (Med. Lang. 
of Lk. p. 2). 

36. eyéveto OdpBos. Mk. has éGapB7Oycav; but Lk. is fond of 
these periphrases with yivowat (i. 65, Vi. 49, Viil. 17, xii. 40, xili. 2, 4, 
XVlll. 23, etc.): see on ili, 22. The word expresses amazement 
akin to terror, and the subst. is peculiar to Lk. (v. 9; Acts iii. 10). 
Just as Christ’s doctrine amazed them in comparison with the 
formalism of the scribes, so His authority over demons in compari- 
son with the attempts of the exorcists: all the more so, because a 
single word sufficed for Him, whereas the exorcists used incanta- 
tions, charms, and much superstitious ceremonial (Tob. viii. 1-3 ; 
Jos. Azz. vili. 2. 5; Justin, Apol. ii. 6; Try. Ixxxv.). 

tis 6 Adyos obtos. Not, Quid hoc rec est? ‘What manner a 
thinge is this?” (Beza, Luth. Tyn. Cran. Grotius), but Quod est 
hoc verbum? “What is this word?” (Vulg. Wic. Rhem. RV.). 
It is doubtful whether in N.T. Adyos has the meaning of “ event, 
occurrence, deed”: but comp. i. 4 and Mk. i. 45. Whether Adyos 
is here to be confined to the command given to the demon, or 
includes the previous teaching (ver. 32), is uncertain. Mk. i. 27 is 
in favour of the latter. In this case we have an ambiguous 67 to 
deal with ; and once more “because” or “for” is more probable 
than “that” (see on i. 45). But if “that” be adopted, 6 Adyos has 
the more limited meaning: “What is this word, that with authority?” 
etc. 

ev e€oucia kal Suvdper. eSovoia, cut non potest contradic ; dvvaper, 
cui non potest resisti (Beng.). Mk. has xar efovoiav only. The 
beloved physician is fond of dvvauis, esp. in the sense of “ inherent 
power of dealing” (v. 17, vi. 19, Vili. 46, ix. 1; Acts iii. 12, iv. 7, 
vi. 8). Mk. has it only once in this sense (v. 30), and Mt. not at 
all. The plural in the sense of “ manifestations of power, miracles” 
(x. 13, xix. 37), is freq. in Mt. and Mk. See on Rom. i. 16. 

37. éfemopeveto HXos Tept aitod. In these sections attention is 
often directed to the impression which Jesus made on His audi- 


136 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 87. 


ences (vv. 20, 22, 32, 36, v. 26), and to the fame which spread 
abroad respecting Him (vv. 14, 15, 37, 40, V. 15, 17). *Hyos (6) 
occurs only here, Acts 11. 2, and Heb. xii. 19. In xxi. 25, jxous 
may be gen. of either 4 7x or 76 jxos. But the existence of 76 
#xos is donbtful. The more classical word is 4 4x7, of which 
6 4xos is a later form. Hobart classes it as a medical word, esp. 
for noises in the ears or the head (p. 64). 

As already stated, this healing of a demoniac is recorded 
by Mk., but not by Mt. Ebrard and Holtzmann would have us 
believe that it is to compensate for this omission that Mt. gives two 
demoniacs among the Gadarenes, where Mk. and Lk. have only one. 


In considering the question of demonzacal possesston we must never lose sight 
of the indisputable fact, that our sources of information clearly, consistently, and 
repeatedly represent Christ as healing demoniacs by commanding demons to 
depart out of the afflicted persons. Zhe Synoptic Gospels uniformly state that 
Jesus went through the form of casting out demons. 

If the demons were there, and Christ expelled them and set their victims 
free, there is nothing to explain: the narrative is in harmony with the facts. 

If the demons were not there, and demoniacal possession is a superstition, we 
must choose between three hypotheses. 

1. Jesus did not employ this method of healing those who were believed to 
be possessed, but the Evangelists have erroneously attributed it to Him. 

2. Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out 
demons, although He knew that there were no demons there to be cast out. 

3. Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out 
demons, because in this matter He shared the erroneous belief of His con- 
temporaries. 

n the whole subject consult articles in D.&.?, Schaff-Herzog, Eucy. Brit. 
on ‘‘Demoniacs,” ‘‘ Demons,” ‘‘Demonology”; Trench, JZzracles, No. 5; 
Caldwell, Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1876, vol. xxvii. pp. 369 ff. No explanation is 
satisfactory which does not account for the uniform and repeated testimony of 
the Evangelists. 


88, 39. The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law. Mk. i. 30. 


It is quite beyond doubt that the relationship expressed by zev@epd is either 
** wife’s mother” or ‘‘husband’s mother” (xii. 53; Mt. viii. 14, x. 35; Mk. 
i. 30; Ruthi. 14, ii. 11, 18, 19,23; Mic. vii. 6; Dem. Plut. Lucian). So also 
mevOepés is either ‘‘ wife’s father” or ‘‘ husband’s father” (Jn. xviii. 13; Gen. 
XXxVili. 25, 38; Judg. i. 16; 1 Sam. iv. 19, 21). But for ‘‘ wife’s father” the 
more indefinite yauSpés (‘‘a relation by marriage”) is freq. in LXX (Exod. 
iii. I, iv. 18; Num. x. 29; Judg. iv. 11, xix. 4, 7,9). In Greek there is a dis- 
tinct term for ‘‘ stepmother,” viz. the very common word pyrpud (Hom. Hes. 
Hdt. Aisch. Plat. Plut.); and if Lk. had intended to designate the second 
wife of Peter’s father, he would have used this term. That he should have 
ignored a word in common use which would express his meaning, and employ 
another word which has quite a different meaning, is incredible. That Peter 
was married is clear from 1 Cor. ix. 5. Clement of Alexandria says that Petet’s 
wife helped him in ministering to women,—an apostolic anticipation of Zenana 
missions (S¢vom. ili. 6, p. 536, ed. Potter). He also states that Peter and Philip 
had children, and that Philip gave his daughters in marriage (zdzd. p. 535, ed. 
Potter, quoted Eus. A. £. iii. 30. 1); but he gives no names. It is remarkable 
that nothing is known of any children of any one Apostle. This is the first 
mention of Peter by Lk., who treats him as a person too well known to need 
introduction. For other miracles of mercy on the sabbath see on xiv. I. 


IV. 38, 39.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 137 

88. “Avactds Sé dd tis cuvaywyjs. This may refer to Christ’s 
rising from His seat; but it is more natural to understand it of 
His leaving the synagogue. The verb is used where no sitting or 
lying is presupposed, and means no more than preparation for 
departure (i. 39, xv. 18, 20, xxiii. 1; Acts x. 20, xxil. 10): see on 
i. 39. Mk. has eviews ‘the plur. including Simon and Andrew, 
James and John. Neither Lk. nor Mt. mention the presence of 
disciples, but Peter, and perhaps Andrew, may be understood 
among those who jparncay auvTov TEpl avTys. 

cuvexonevy TupeT@ peydaho. Perhaps all three words are medical, 
and certainly cvvéxouaz occurs three times as often in Lk. as in the 
rest of N.T. Galen states that fevers were distinguished as 
“creat” and “slight,” weyaAor and cptxpot (Hobart, p. 3). Comp. 
Plat. Gorg. 512 A. Note the analytical tense. 

89. émotas émdvw aitis émetiynoev. Instead of this both Mt. 
and Mk. state that He touched her hand. Proximus accessus 
ostendebat, virtuti Jesu cedere morbum, neque ullum corpori gus a 
morbo imminere periculum (Beng.). The ézeriuyoe of ver. 35 does 
not show that the use of the same word here is meant to imply that 
the fever is regarded as a personal agent. But comp. xiii. 11, 16; 
Mk. ix. 17, 23. The ddyxev, which is in all three narratives, 
harmonizes with either view. In any case this unusual mode of 
healing would interest and impress a physician; and Lk. alone 
notices the suddenness with which her strength returned. For 
Tapaxpyue. See ON V. 25. 

Sinkdver adtots. Mk. has air@: the airois includes the disciples 
and others present. Her being able to minister to them proves 
the completeness of the cure. Recovery from fever is commonly 
attended by great weakness. And this seems to be fatal to the view 
of B. Weiss, that Christ’s cures were “ momentary effects produced 
by His touch, which, although the result was absolutely certain, yet 
merely began a healing process that was completed in a perfectly 
natural way.” What is gained by such an hypothesis? 


The Attic form of the imperf. of diaixovéw is édi&xébvouv ; but denxédvour is 
the reading of the MSS. in Eur. Cyc/. 406 (Veitch, s.z.). Comp. viii. 3; Mt. 
iv. II, vill. 15; Mk. i. 13, 31; Jn. xii. 2; I Pet. i. 12. 


40, 41. Numerous Healings in the Evening. LVous rencontrons 
ici un de ces moments dans la vie du Seigneur ot la puissance miracu- 
leuse se déployait avec une richesse particulitre: vi. 19” (Godet, 
i. p. 339). Comp. Mt. viii. 16, 17; Mk. i. 32-34. The healing 
of the demoniac (ver. 35), and of Peter’s mother-in-law, had proved 
that He could heal diseases both of mind and body. All three 
note the two kinds of healing; but “the physician separates the 
two with special distinctness, and lends no support to the view 
that possession is merely a physical disorder.” 


138 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 40, 41, 


40. Advovtos 8€ tod fAiov. Mt. has Owias dé yevopevys, while 
Mk. has “Owias 52 yevouevys, dre eSvoev 6 HAwos. We infer that 
here Mk. gives us the whole expression in the original tradition, of 
which all three make use; and that Mt. uses one half and Lk. the 
other half of it. See v. 13, xxii. 34, xxiii. 38, for similar cases. 
Some infer that Mk. has combined the phrases used by the other two, 
and therefore must have written last of the three. But an analysis 
of the passages which all three have in common shows that this is 
incredible. The literary skill required for combining two narra- 
tives, without adding much new material, would be immense; and 
Mk. does not possess it. It is much simpler to suppose that Mk. 
often gives the original tradition in full, and that the other two 
each give portions of it, and sometimes different portions. See E. 
A. Abbott, Zzcy. Brit. oth ed. art. “Gospels,” and Abbott and 
Rushbrooke, Zhe Common Tradition of the Syn. Gosp. p. Vie 

Atvovros. “When the sun was setting,” or “ere the sun was 
set,” as the hymn gives it.1 The eagerness of the people was such 
that the very moment the sabbath was over they began to move 
the sick: comp. Jn. v. 10. Note Lk.’s favourite dravtes. 

évl éxdotw aitav Tas xelpas émtiBels. Lk. alone preserves this 
graphic detail, which emphasizes the laborious solicitude of the 
work. Sic singuli penitius commoti sunt ad fidem (Beng.). It does 
not apply to the demoniacs, who were healed Adyw, as Mt. states. 


The action is a generally recognized symbol of ¢ransmisston, especially in 
conferring a blessing (Gen. xlviii. 14; Lev. ix. 22, 23; Mk. x. 16). It is also 
used to symbolize the transmission of guilt (Lev. i. 4, iii. 2, vill. 14, xvi. 21, 
22). The statement that ‘‘our Lord healed at first by laying on of hands, but 
gradually passed over to the exclusive use of the word of power, in order that 
He might not encourage the popular idea that there was a necessary connexion 
between the laying on of hands and the cure,” is not confirmed by Scripture. 
The nobleman’s son and the man at Bethesda were healed by a word (Jn. iv. 50, 
v. 8); Malchus, by a touch. There was no necessity to use either word or 
touch. He could heal by an act of will, and at a distance from His person 
(vii. 10, xvii. 14; Jn. iv. 50). But He more often used means, possibly to aid 
the faith of those who needed healing (xiii. 13, xiv. 4, Mt. viii. 3, ix. 29; Mk 
Vil. 33, Vili. 23, 25; Jn. ix. 6: comp. Mk. v. 23, 28, 41, vil. 32, viii. 22). 
The fact that Jesus commonly used some action in healing made the Jews the 
more irate at His healing on the sabbath. Excepting Acts xvii. 25, Gepamevw in 
N.T. is always ‘‘heal, cure,” not merely ‘“‘serve, take care of.” Like colere, it 
is used of service both to God and to men; and like curare, it is both ‘‘ to care 
for” and ‘‘to cure.” The imperfects, éOepdarevev and ¢éjpxero, mark the con- 
tinuance and repetition of the actions. 


41. ééjpxeto Sé kal Saipdma amd woAAGy. “But demons also” 


1 The form dtvw seems to be Ionic, but occurs once or twice in Attic prose 
(Veitch, s.v.). Except éducey or &u in Mk. i. 32, the word does not occur again 
in N.T. It is freq. in LXX (Judg. xiv. 18; 2 Sam. ii. 24; 1 Kings xxii. 36; 
2 Chron. xviii. 34, etc.). It means ‘‘sink into, enter,” év7ov or the like being 

ressed or understood. Lk. never uses the unclassical éWla (ix. 12, xxii. 14, 
xxiii. 54, xxiv. 29), which occurs ofter " Mt. and Mk. and twice in Jn. 


' 


IV. 41, 42.) THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 139 


(as well as diseases) “came out of many.” For 8é kat see on iii. 9, 
and for éfépxec@a. dé see on ver. 35: both are characteristic of 
Lk. He alone mentions the xpdfew of the demons. There is not 
much difference between 6 vids rod @cod here and 6 dytos rod Oeod 
in ver. 34. In both cases it is the presence of Divine holiness 
which is felt and proclaimed. Phil. ii. ro is here not to the point ; 
for kataxOovia there probably does not mean devils. 

ouUK ela atta ade, dr. “He suffered them not to speak, 
because.” Not, “suffered them not to say that”; which would 
require Aéyew. In N.T. Aadeiy and Aéye are never confused ; not 
even Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 17; 1 Thes.i. 8. Excepting Mt. 
xxiv. 3 and 1 Cor. x. 13, édw is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xxii. 55; 
Acts v. 38, xiv. 16, xvi. 7, xix. 30, xxili. 32, XXViil. 32, 40, XXxvili. 4); 
and «ciwy is the usual form of imperf. 


Godet’s suggestion, that the demons wished to compromise Jesus by exciting 
a dangerous enthusiasm among the people, or to create a belief that there was a 
bond of connexion between their work and His, is gratuitous. Their cries are 
more like involuntary exclamations of dismay. That Jesus should not allow 
them to make Him known was natural, although Strauss condemns it as incon- 
sistent. Vec tempus erat, nec ht precones (Beng. on Mk. iii. 12). ‘It was not 
meet that unclean demons should usurp the glory of the apostolic office” (Cyril 
Alex.). Jesus had rejected the offered assistance of the evil one in the 
wilderness, and could not desire to be proclaimed as the Messiah by His 
ministers. Moreover, while the national ideas respecting the Messiah remained 
so erroneous, the time for such proclamation had not yet come. Comp. 


Jn. vi. 15. 


42, 43. The Multitude’s Pursuit of Him. Comp. Mk. i. 35-39 
Although Lk. has some features which Mk. has not, the latter’s 
account is more like that of an eye-witness. 

42. Tevopévms Sé fpepas. See on vi. 12. Mk. has the strong 
expression zpwt évvvya Aiav. It was so early that it was still like 
night. This shows His anxiety to escape the multitude and secure 
time for refreshment of His spiritual nature by converse with God: 
Mk. adds kaxet rpoontxero. _Jesus had probably passed the night 
in Simon’s house ; and for of éxhor Mk has Siwy Kai oi per’ abrod, 
for as yet Jesus had no fixed disciples. Peter in telling Mk. of the 
incident would say, “ We went after Him.” 

ot dxdor emeLntrouvy adtév. ‘The multitudes kept seeking for 
Him.” The ém- marks the direction of the search: comp. éédo6y 
(ver. 17). They wanted more of His teaching and of His 
miraculous cures. See on xi. 29. But neither this nor the 
mo\AGv in ver. 41 proves that there had not been time to heal all 
who came the previous evening. Would He have sent any empty 
away? Lk. is fond of recording the eagerness of the people to 
come to Christ (v. I, 19, V1. 19, Vill. 19, 40, xii. I, xxi. 38: comp, 
xix. 3 and xxiii. 8). 

HAVov ews adtod, kai Katetxov adTdv Tod pi TopeveoOar dm abTay, 


140 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _[IV. 42, 48. 


They did not leave off seeking wa¢i7 they reached Him, and they 
tried to stay Him from going away from them. 


This use of ws with a person is not classical: comp. tws jdv (Acts 
ix. 33) and ws rod Bactkéws (1 Mac, iii. 26). Of place (iv. 29, x. 15) or of 
time (xxiii. 44) ws is common enough. 

With xaretyov (imperf. of attempted or intended action) comp. éxdéAouv 
(i. 59). The 70d wh ropeveoOa is not Lk.’s favourite construction to express 
purposes or result (see on i. 74), but the gen. after a verb of detention or 
prevention: comp. Rom. xv. 22. For the apparently superfluous negative 
comp. xx. 27, xxlv. 16; Acts x. 47, xiv. 18, xx. 27. Win. xliv. 4. b, p. 409; 
Ixv. 2. B, Pp. 755- 


48. Kai tats érépais wédeow. Placed first for emphasis. “To 
the other cities also (as well as to Capernaum) I must preach the 
good tidings.” It is a rebuke to them for wishing to monopolize 
Him. It is not a rebuke for interrupting His preaching by 
requiring Him to work miracles. There is no evidence that He 
ever regarded these works of mercy as an interruption of His 
ministry, or as an unworthy lowering of it. On the contrary, they 
were an essential part of it; not as evidence of His Messiahship, 
but as the natural work of the great Healer of body and soul. 
They were, moreover, an important element in His teaching, for 
His miracles were parables. As evidence they did not prove His 
Messiahship, and He did not greatly value the faith which was 
produced by them (Jn. ii. 23, 24). He Himself regarded them as 
merely auxiliary (Jn. xiv. 11). He warned His disciples that false 
Christs and false prophets would work miracles (Mk. xiii. 22), just as 
the O.T. had warned the Jews that a Prophet was not to be believed 
simply because he worked miracles (Deut: xiii. 1-3). And, as a 
matter of fact, Christ’s miracles did not convince the Jews (Jn. 
xii. 37). Some thought that He was a Prophet (vii. 16, ix. 8, 19; 
Mt. xxi. 11; Jn. ix. 17), a view taken even by His disciples after 
the crucifixion (xxiv. 19); while others attributed His miracles to 
Satanic agency (Mt. xii. 24). On the other hand, the Baptist, 
although he wrought no miracles, was thought to be the Messiah 
(see on iii. 15). The saying here recorded does not mean, there- 
fore, “You are mistaking My work. I came to preach the good 
tidings, not to do works of healing”: but, “ You are selfish in your 
desires. I came to preach the good tidings and to do works of 
healing to all, and not to a favoured few.” For edayyehioacOar see 
on ii. 10. 

Sei. For the second time (ii. 49) Christ uses this word respect- 
ing His own conduct. Comp. ix. 22, xili. 33, xvii. 25, xix. 5, 
XXIL 37, xxiv. 26, 44, 46. His work and His sufferings are ordered 
by Divine decree. The word is thus used of Christ throughout 
N.T. (Acts iii. 21, xvii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 25). 

thy Baowdetay tod Ocod. This is Lk.’s first use of this frequent 


IV. 43.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I4I 


expression (vi. 20, vii. 28, viii. 1, 10, etc.), which Jn. employs twice 
(iii. 3, 5), Mt. thrice (xii. 28, xxi. 31, 43), and Mk. often. For its 
import see Ewald, ist. of Zsrae/, vi., Eng. tr. pp. 201-210; 
Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Kingdom of God”; Edersh. Z. & JZ. i. 
pp. 265-270. ‘The éml rodro refers to the whole of what precedes : 
“For this end,” viz. “to preach the good tidings everywhere in the 
land.” For this use of éwi comp. xxiii. 48 and Mt. xxvi. 50. It 
is quite classical (Xen. Azad. il. 5. 22, vil. 8. 4). For émeotddnv 
see on ver. 18. The evidence for it (§ BC DLX) as against 
dméotadpar (A QR) is overwhelming. Yet Godet says on peut 
hésiter. Jt refers to the mission from the Father, as does the 
eénAOov of Mk. But it is possible to give the latter the inadequate 
interpretation of leaving the house at Capernaum. 

44. Kal fv kyptcowy eis Tas cuvaywyds Tis “loudaias. This 
statement forms a conclusion to the section (14-44); and the 
analytical tense indicates that what is stated continued for some 
time. 

Both Lk. and Mk. have els tas cuvvayywyds, which in both cases has been 
altered into the easier év tats ovvaywyais. The els may be explained asa 
pregn. constr., ‘‘ He went into the synagogues and preached there” or as ex- 
pressing the motion or direction of the preaching (Mk. iv. 15; Jn. viii. 26). 
Comp. és Tév Sjuov raita Aéywow (Thuc. v. 45. 1). It seems probable that 
the reading "Iovdalus (§ BC LQR) is the original one, which has been 
corrected to I'ad:vAalas (A DXT'A ATI) on account of its difficulty. But, as 
in i. 5 and vii. 17, Judea may here mean the whole country of the Jews, 
Palestine. Lk. often uses Iovdala in this sense (xxiii. 5; Acts ii. 9, x. 37, 
xi. I, 29, xxvi. 20; comp. Gal. i. 22). Classic writers use the term in much 


the same manner. Strabo means by it all the region from Lebanon south- 
war 


V.1-VL. 11. From the Call of the first Disciples to the Nomina- 
tion of the Twelve. 


This section presents a symmetrical arrangement, which possibly 
is intentional. The call of a leading disciple (1-11) is followed 
by two healings which provoke controversy (12-16, 17-26) ; and 
then the call of another leading disciple (27-39) is followed 
by two incidents on the sabbath, which again provoke controversy 
(vi. 1-5, 6-11). 


V. 1-11. The call of Simon. In Mt. iv. 18-22 and Mk. i. 
16-20 the narrative is the call of Simon and Andrew, and of James 
and John. Here Andrew is not mentioned. And although all obey 
the call (ver. t1), yet Simon alone is addressed (vz. 4, 10). But 


142 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V.1, 2. 


the identity of this incident with that narrated by Mt. and Mk, can 
neither be affirmed nor denied with certainty. In Mt. and Mk. 
the disciples are fishing ; here they are washing their nets before 
putting them away. The important point is that in all narratives 
those called are at work. Similarly, Levi is called from his busi- 
ness. It would seem as if none of the Twelve were called when 
idle. 

1. *Eyéveto 8. See detached note at the end of ch. i. For tév 
dxov see On xi. 29; for év TG Tév dxXov EmKetoar see On ili. 21 ; for 
tov Adyov Tod Oeod see on vill. 11; for kat introducing the apodosis 
see on il. 21; and for kat atdtés see on ver. 14. All these points, 
with the analytical jv éotds (i. 7, 10, 20, 21, etc.), are characteristic 
of Lk. Not often do we find so many marks of his style in so 
small a compass. Comp. vill. 22, 37, 40, 41. For the popular 
desire to behold Christ see on iv. 42. With émxeto@at comp. xxii. 
23; Acts xxvii. 20; 1 Cor. ix. 16; Heb. 1x. 10; Jos: Azzjeeugaeas 
It is used in a literal sense Jn. xi. 38, xxi. 9. Here it is mainly 
figurative, but it includes the notion of physical pressure. The 
avrds distinguishes Jesus from the 6yAos: comp. iv. 15, 30. 

Tapa Thy Nipyny Tevynoapér. With characteristic accuracy Lk. 
never calls it a sea, while the others never call it a lake. Except 
in Rev. of the “lake of fire,” Aduvy in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. 
When he uses @aAacoa, he means sea in the ordinary sense (xvii. 
2, 6, xxi. 25; Acts iv. 24, etc.). 

In AV. of 1611 both here and Mk. vi. 53 the name appears as “‘ Genesareth,” 
following the spelling of the Vulgate ; but in Mt. xiv. 34 as ‘‘Genesaret.” The 
printers have corrected this to ‘‘Gennesaret” in all three places. Tevyyoapér 
is the orthography of the best MSS. in all three places. Josephus writes both 
Aluvn Tevvnoapiris (Ant. xviii. 2. 1) and Nluvyn Tevvnodp (B. J. iii. 10. 7). 
1 Mac. xi. 67 we have 7d tédwp tod Tevynodp. But in O.T. the lake is called 
Oddacca Xevéped (Num. xxxiv. I11?; Josh. xii. 3) from a town of that name near 
to it (Josh. xix. 35). Josephus contrasts its fertility with the barrenness of the 
lower lake in the Jordan valley (2. /. iv. 8. 2): the one is the ‘‘Sea of Life,” 
the other the ‘‘Sea of Death.” See Stanley’s fine description of ‘‘ the most 


sacred sheet of water that this earth contains” (Szz. & Pal. pp. 368-378) ; 
Farrar, Life of Christ, i. pp. 175-182; Conder, D.Z.? art. “‘ Gennesaret.” 


For apd ¢. acc. after a verb of rest comp. xviii. 35; Acts x. 6, 32; 
Heb. xi. 12: Xen. Azad. iii. 5. I, vii. 2. II. 

With qv écrwés (which is the apodosis of éyévero), kal eldev is to be joined : 
‘Tt came to pass that He was standing, and He saw.” It is very clumsy to 
make xal atrés jv éords parenthetical, and take xa eldev as the apodosis of 
éyévero. 


2. ot S€ Greets. “ But the sea-folk” (As) or “fishermen.” It 
is one of many Homeric words which seem to have gone out of 
use and then to have reappeared in late Greek. Fishing in the 
lake has now almost ceased. The Arabs dislike the water. The 
washing of the nets was preparatory to hanging them up to dry. 
As distinct from virrw, which is used of washing part of the human 


V. 2-6. THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 143 


body, and Aovw, which is used of washing the whole of it, huvw is 
used of washing inanimate objects (Rev. vii. 14, xxii. 14; Gen. xlix. 
11; Exod. xix. 10). In Lev. xv. 11 all three words are used with 
exactly this difference of meaning. Trench, Syz. xlv. 

+a Sixtua. The most general term for nets of all kinds, of which 
dpdhiBrynorpov (Mt. iv. 18) and caynvy (Mt. xiii. 47) are special 
varieties. Trench, Syz. lxiv.; D.Z. art. “ Net.” 

8. énavayayeiv, The correct word for “putting off to sea” 
(2 Mace. xii. 47; Xen. Hed/en. vi. 2. 28): elsewhere in N.T. only 
Mt. xxi. 18 in the sense of “return.” For the double preposition 
comp. éavépxomat (x. 35, xix. 15) and éravarravw (x. 6). Christ 
uses Peter’s boat as a pulpit, whence to throw the net of the Gospel 
over His hearers. We have a similar scene Mk. iv. 1, and in 
both cases He sits to teach, as in the synagogue at Nazareth. 
Peter was probably steering, and therefore both before and after 
the sermon he is addressed as to the placing of the boat. But the 
letting down of the nets required more than one person, and hence 
the change to the plural (yaAdoare). Von statim promittit Dominus 
capturam: explorat prius obsequia Simonis (Beng.). 

6. Emortdta. Lk. alone uses éruorarys (vill. 24, 45, ix. 33, 49, 
xvii. 13), and always in addresses to Christ. He never uses 
*“PaBBei, which is common in the other Gospels, esp. in Jn., but 
would not be so intelligible to Gentiles. The two words are not 
synonymous, émordérys implying authority of any kind, and not 
merely that of a teacher. Here it is used of one who has a right 
to give orders. 

Su dAns vuKTds Komidcavtes. Through the whole of the best 
time for fishing they had toiled fruitlessly. Only in bibl. Grk. has 
koridw the meaning of ‘work with much effort, toil wearisomely ” 
(ait27 5 Acts xx. 35; Mit. vii.28;. Josh. xxiv. 13, etc). The 
original meaning is “become exhausted, grow weary” (Jn. iv. 6). 
Clem. Alex. quotes a letter of Epicurus, Myre véos tis dv peddErw 
pirocogelv, pyre yépwv imdpxwv Komidtw pirocopdy (Strom. iv. 8, 
Pp. 594, ed. Potter). 

emt 8€ 7G pyuatt cov xahdow Ta Sixtua. “But relying upon 
Thy word I will have the nets let down.” The “nevertheless” of 
AV. Cran, and Gen. is too strong: for that we should have zAqv 
(vi. 24, 35, etc.). For this use of émi, “on the strength of,” comp. 
ii, 20; Acts iv. 21. Win. xlviii: d, p. 491. The xaddoare and 
mojoavres Show that the xaAdow includes the employment of 
others. Excepting Mk. ii. 4 and 2 Cor. xi. 33, yaA dw is peculiar to 
Lk. (vv. 4, 5; Acts ix. 25, xxvii. 17, 30). | With the faith involved 
in xoAdow 7a Sikrva we May compare KéeAcvody pe eAGetv mpds od 
émt 7a voara (Mt. xiv. 28). 

6. ouvéxhevoay whi90s ixOdwy wodd. Nota miracle of creation, 
but at least of knowledge, even if Christ’s will did not bring the 


144 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [vV. 6-8, 


fish to the spot. In no miracle before the Resurrection does 
Jesus create ; and we have no sufficient reason for believing that 
the food provided at the second miraculous draught of fishes was 
created (Jn. xxi. 9-13). There is no exaggeration, as De Wette 
thinks, in dceppyoero or in BvbierOar (ver. 7). The nets “were 
breaking,” ze. beginning to break, when the help from the other 
boat prevented further mischief, and then both boats were over- 
loaded. On the masses of fish to be seen in the lake see Tristram, 
Nat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 285, and D.B.? p. 1074: “The density 
of the shoals of fish in the Lake of Galilee can scarcely be con- 
ceived by those who have not witnessed them. They sometimes 
cover an acre or more on the surface in one dense mass.” 


The form piyjocw occurs in poetry (Hom. //. xvili. 571, xxiv. 454) and late 
prose (Strab. xi. 14. 8). It is a collat. form of piyyvuse (Veitch, s.v., and 
Curtius, Ztym. 511, 661): but see on ix. 42. 


7 Katéveucay Tots petsxors. Possibly because they were too 
far off for a call to be heard. The other boat was still close to the 
shore (ver. 2), for Simon alone had been told to put out into deep 
water. The verb is freq. in Hom., and occurs in Hdt. and Plato, 
generally in the sense of “nod assent, grant.” Here only in N.T. 
Euthymius suggests that they were too agitated to call. 


Here and Heb. i. 9 (from Ps. xliv. 8) we have uéroxos as a subst. Comp. 
Heb. iii. I, 14, vi. 4, xii. 8: and see T. S. Evans ont Cor. x. 16-18 in 
Speakers Com. *‘ As distinguished from kowwyds (ver. 10; Heb. x. 33), which 
suggests the idea of personal fellowship, “éroxos describes participation in 
some common blessing or privilege, or the like. The bond of union lies in 
that which is shared and not in the persons themselves” (Wsctt. on Heb. 
iii. 1). For ovA\aBéoGar in the sense of ‘‘assist” comp. Phil. iv. 3. In 
class. Grk. the act. is more common ir this sense. For 7\@av see on i. 59. 


émdnoav dphdtepa, Ta mrota dote BulilecOar adtd. For érAnoav 
see on i. 15; duporepor is another favourite word (i. 6, 7, vi. 39, 
vii. 42; Acts viil. 38, x. 16, xxiii. 8); not in Mk. or Jn. “They 
filled both the boats, so that they degax to sink” : comp. dteppycero. 
The act. is used 2 Mac. xii. 4 of the sinking of persons; by Poly- 
bius (ii. 10. 5) of the sinking of ships; and 1 Tim: vi. 9 of sending 
down to perdition. Nowhere else in N.T. 

8. Eipwv Nétpos mpocemecev tois ydvacw “Incod. This is the 
only place in his Gospel in which Lk. gives Peter both names, 
and it is the first mention of the surname: see on Vi, 14. 


The constr. mpoortmrewv Tots yor. is quite classical (Eur. Or. 1332 3 comp. 
Mk. vii. 25 ; Soph. O. C. 1606) ; often with dat. of pers. (viii. 28, 47 ; Acts 
xvi. 29; Mk. iii. II, v. 33). 


"E€ehOe Gm éyod. Not “Leave my boat,” which is too definite, 
but, “Go out of my vicinity, Depart from me.” See on iv. 35. 


V. 8-10.| THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 145 


It is quite erroneous to introduce here the notion that sailors 
believe it to be unlucky to have a criminal on board (Cic. De Vat. 
Deor. iii. 37. 89 ; Hor. Carm. ili. 2. 26). In that case Peter, like 
Jonah, would have asked to be thrown into the sea. That the 
Twelve, before their call, were exceptionally wicked, trép racav 
ipaptiay dvouwrepouvs (Barn. v. g), is unscriptural and incredible. 
But Origin seems to accept it (Con. Ceds. i. 63; comp. Jerome, 
Adv. Pelag. iii. 2). See Schanz, ad loc. p. 198. 


Peter does not regard himself as a criminal, but as a sinful man ; and this 
miracle has brought home to him a new sense, both of his own sinfulness and of 
Christ’s holiness. 1t is not that he fears that Christ’s holiness is dangerous to a 
sinner (B. Weiss), but that the contrast between the two is felt to be so intense 
as to be intolerable. The presence of the sinless One is a reproach and a con- 
demnation, rather than a peril ; and therefore such cases as those of Gideon and 
Manoah (Judg. vi. 22, xili. 22), cited by Grotius and De Wette, are not quite 
parallel. Job (xlii. 5, 6) is a better illustration; and Beng. compares the 
centurion (Mt. viii. 8). The objection that Peter had witnessed the healing of 
his wife’s mother and other miracles, and therefore couid not be so awestruck 
by this miracle, is baseless. It frequently happens that one experience touches 
the heart, after many that were similar to it have failed to do so. Perhaps, 
without being felt, they prepare the way. Moreover, this was a miracle in 
Peter’s own craft, and therefore was likely to make a special impression on 
him ; just as the healing of a disease; known to the profession as incurable, 
would specially impress a physician. 


Kupte. The change from émordra (see on ver. 5) is remarkable, 
and quite in harmony with the change of circumstances. It is the 
“‘ Master” whose orders must be obeyed, the “ Lord” whose holi- 
ness causes moral agony to the sinner (Dan. x. 16). Grotius, 
followed by Trench, points out that the dominion over all nature, 
including “the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through 
the paths of the seas” (Ps. viii. 8), lost by Adam, is restored in 
Christ, the ideal man and the second Adam. But that Peter 
recognized this is more than we know. In what follows notice the 
characteristic rdvtas and ovr. 

.9. emt tH Gypa tav ixOwr. This was the das/s of their amaze- 
ment: see small print on il. 33, and comp. Acts xiv. 3 and Rom. 
v. 14. There is no need to make dypu act. in ver. 4, “a catching,” 
and pass. here, “the thing caught.” “For a catch” in ver. 4; 
“at the catch of fish” here. If dy ovvé\aBov (BD X, Goth.) is 
the true reading, both may be act. But if 7 ovvéAafor is right, 
then in both places a@ypa is pass. In either case we have the 
idiomatic attraction of the relative which is so freq. in Lk. See 
small print on iii, 19. The word is common in poetry both act. 
and pass. Not in LXX, nor elsewhere in N.T. Note the change 
of meaning from ovAAaBéoGar in ver. 7 to ovvéAaBov. The verb 
is freq. in Lk., but elsewhere rare in N.T. 

10. “IdkwBov kai “lwdvyy. The first mention of them by Lk. 

IO 


146 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 10, 11, 


In Mt. and Mk. they were in their boat, mending their nets, when 
Jesus called them; and Mt. adds that Zebedee was with them, 
-which Mk. implies (i. 20). For kowvwvot see on ver. 7. Are they 
the same as the péroyor? It is possible that Peter had his xowwvot 
in his boat, while the péroxou were in the other boat. In any case 
the difference of word should be preserved in translation. This 
Tyn. Cran. and Gen. effect, with “fellows” for méroxyor and 
“partners” for kowwvot. But Vulg. and Beza have soci for both; 
and RV. follows AV. with “partners” for both. 

eimey Tpos Tov Zipwva “Incods. It is still Peter who is singled 
out for notice. Yet some critics affirm that it is the tendency of 
this Evangelist to depreciate Peter. For ph good see on i. 13: 
excepting Mk. v. 36 and Rev. i. 17, Lk. alone uses the expres- 
sion without an accusative. Peter’s sense of unworthiness was in 
itself a reason for courage. Quo magis sibi displicebat hoc magis 
Domino placet (Grotius). 

amd tod viv. The present moment is a crisis in his life, of 
which he was reminded at the second miraculous draught of fishes, 
when the commission given to him now was restored to him after 
his fall. Excepting 2 Cor. v. 16 and [Jn. viii. 11], do rod viv is 
peculiar to Lk. (i. 48, xii. 52, xxli. 18, 69; Acts xviii. 6). Comp. 
€ws Tod viv (Mt. xxiv. 21; Mk. xiii. 19) and aypr tod viv (Rom. viii. 
2oi5| Phil, i. 5): 

GvOpérous on LwypHv. Both substantive and verb have special 
point (sez instead of fish ; for /ife instead of for death) ; while the 
analytical tense marks the permanence of the new pursuit: comp. 
i. 20. This last is preserved in Rhem. “shalt be taking,” follow- 
ing Vulg. ers capiens. Beza seems to be alone in giving the full 
force of CwypGv (Cwds and aypetv) : vivos capies homines. But to add 
“alive” in English deprives “men” of the necessary emphasis.! 
The verb is used of sparing the lives of those taken in battle: 
Ldypet, Atpéos vié, od 8 aia dé€ar drowa (Hom. ZZ. vi. 46). Else- 
where in N.T only 2 Tim. ii. 26, of the evil one. Comp. the 
exhortation of Socrates to Critobulus: “AAAG Oappay weipS ayabds 
yiyvecOat, kat towtros yryvopevos Onpav émtxe!pe rods Kadovs Te 
kayabovs (Xen. AZem. ii. 6. 28). 

ll. katayaydvres Ta Thoia. Like éxavayayetv in ver. 3, this is 
a nautical expression ; freq. in Acts (ix. 30, xxii. 30, xxiii. 15, 20, 
etc.). Comp. avdyevv, vill. 22. 

adévtes Tdvta jkohovOncav adits. Even the large draught of 
fishes does not detain them. They are sure that He who has 
given them such marvellous returns from their usual business will 
be ready to provide for them when, at His summons, they abandon 


1Cod. Brix. has hominum eritis captores, including James and John, 
although zolz témere precedes. D has moujow yap tuas aduets dvOpdarwy (from 
Mt. and Mk.) after the insertion pi) yiverGe adtets x Odwr. 


Vv. 11] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 147 


their business. The call was addressed to Peter (ver. 10), but the 
sons of Zebedee recognize that it concerns them also; and they 
leave and follow. 


In this late Greek d¢lnu is preferred to Xelww and its compounds, and 
dxodovbéw to érouat (which does not occur in N.T.) and its compounds. 


The fact that other disciples besides Peter obeyed the call and followed 
Jesus, is the main reason for identifying this narrative with Mk. i. 16-20 and 
Mt. iv. 18-22. All three have the important word a¢évres, and Mt. and Lk. 
have jKxodovOncav att, for which Mk. has dwf\ov éxicov airod. But note 
that Lk. alone has his favourite rdvra after dpévres (comp. vi. 30, vii. 35, 
ix. 43, xi. 4, xii. 10). Against these similarities, however, we have to set the 
differences, chief among which is the miraculous draught of fishes, which Mt. 
and Mk. omit. Could Peter have failed to include this in his narrative? And 
would Mk. have omitted it, if the Petrine tradition had contained it? It is 
easier to believe that some of the disciples were called more than once, and that 
their abandonment of their original mode of life was gradual: so that Mk. and 
Mt. may relate one occasion and Lk. another. Even after the Resurrection 
Peter speaks quite naturally of ‘‘ going a fishing” (Jn. xxi. 3), as if it was still at 
least an occasional pursuit. But we must be content to remain in doubt as to 
the relation of this narrative to that of Mk. and Mt. See Weiss, Leben Jesu, 
L. iii. 4, Eng. tr. ii. pp. 54-59. : 

This uncertainty, however, need not be extended to the relation of this 
miracle to that recorded in Jn. xxi. 1-14. It cannot be accepted as probable 
that, in the source from which Lk. drew, ‘‘ the narrative of the call of Peter has 
been confused with that of his reinstatement in the office which had been 
entrusted to him, and so the history of the miraculous draught of fishes which is 
connected with the one has been united with the other.” The contrast between 
all the main features of the two miracles is too great to be explained by confused 
recollection. 1. There Jesus is not recognized at first; here He is known 
directly He approaches. 2. There He is on the shore; here He is in Peter’s 
boat. 3. There Peter and John are together ; here they seem to be in different 
boats. 4. There Peter leaves the capture of the fish to others ; here he is chief 
actor in it. 5. There the net is not broken; here itis. 6. There the fish are 
caught close to the shore and brought to the shore; here they are caught in 
deep water and are taken into the boats. 7. There Peter rushes through the 
water to the Lord whom he had lately denied ; here, though he had committed 
no such sin, he says, ‘‘ Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” 
There is nothing improbable in two miracles of a similar kind, one granted to 
emphasize and illustrate the call, the other the re-call, of the chief Apostle. 

The way in which the Fathers allegorize the two miracles is well known, the 
first of the Church Militant, the second of the Church Triumphant. R. A. 
Lipsius would have it that the first is an allegory of quite another kind, the 
main point of which is the wéroxo in the other boat. He assumes that James 
and John are in Peter’s boat, and explains thus. That Christ first teaches and 
then suddenly speaks of fishing, tells us that the fishing is symbolical. The 
fishing in deep water is the mission to the heathen, which Peter at first is 
unwilling (?) to undertake (comp. Acts x. 14). The marvellous draught after the 
night of fruitless toil is the conversion of many heathen after the failure of the 
mission to the Jews. This work is so great that Peter with the two other 
Apostles of the Jews are unequal to it, and have to call Paul, Barnabas, and 
others to help them. Peter then recognizes his former unwillingness (?) as a 
sin, and both he and the sons of Zebedee are amazed at the success of the 
mission to the heathen (Gal. ii. 9). Thus the rejection of Jesus by the people 
of Nazareth (iv. 29, 30), and His preaching ‘‘to the other cities also” (iv. 43), 
teach the same lesson as the miraculous draught ; viz. the failure of the mission 


148 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |[V. 11, 12, 


to the Jews and the success of the mission to the heathen (Jahrb. fiir prot. 
Theol. 1875, i. p. 189). The whole is exceedingly forced, and an examination 
of the details shows that they do not fit. If the common view is correct, that 
James and John were the yéroxor in the other boat, the whole structure falls to 
the ground. Had Lk. intended to convey the meaning read into the narrative 
by Lipsius, he would not have left the point on which the whole is based so 
open to misconception. Keim on the whole agrees with Lipsius, and dog- 
matically asserts that ‘‘the artificial narrative of Lk. must unhesitatingly be 
abandoned . . . It is full of subtle and ingenious invention . . . Its historical 
character collapses under the weight of so much that is artificial ” (Jes. of az. iii. 
pp- 264, 265). Holtzmann also pronounces it to be ‘‘ legendary and consciously 
allegorical ” (27 /oco). Does Peter’s apparently inconsistent conduct, beseeching 
Jesus to depart and yet abiding at His feet, look like invention? 


12-16. The Healing of a Leper. Here we certainly have an 
incident which is recorded by all three Evangelists. The amount 
of verbal agreement is very great, and we may confidently affirm 
that all three make use of common material. Mt. (viii. 1-4) is the 
most brief, Mk. (i. 40-45) the most full; but Mt. is the only one 
who gives any note of time. He places the miracle just after Jesus 
had come down from delivering the Sermon on the Mount. 

On the subject of Leprosy see H. V. Carter, Leprosy and 
Elephantiasis, 1874; Tilbury Fox, Skin Diseases, 1877; Kaposi, 
Hautkrankheiten, Wien, 1880 ; and the literature given at the end of 
art. Aussaz¢z in Herzog; also in Hirsch, Handb. d. Pathologie, 1860. 

12. Kat iSov. Hebraistic; in Mt. viii. 2, but not in Mk. i. 4o: 
the xai is the apodosis to éyévero, as in ver. 1. No verb follows 
the idov, as if the presence of the leper were a surprise. Had the 
man disregarded the law in approaching the crowd? Or had the 
people come upon him suddenly, before he could avoid them? 
What follows shows a third possibility. 

wAnpns Aémpas. This particular is given only by the beloved 
physician. His face and hands would be covered with ulcers and 
sores, so that everyone could see that the hideous disease was at 
a very advanced stage. This perhaps accounts for the man’s 
venturing into the multitude, and for their not fleeing at his 
approach ; for by a strange provision of the law, “if the leprosy 
break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of 
him that hath the plague, from his head even to his feet, . . . then 
the priest . . . shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague” 
(Lev. xiii. 12, 13). 

éSey6n adtod. Excepting Mt. ix. 38, the verb is peculiar in 
N.T. to Lk. and Paul. It is especially freq. in Lk. (viii. 28, 38, 
ix. 38, 40, x. 2, etc.). In LXX it represents a variety of Hebrew 
words, and is very common. Here Mk. has zapaxadd@v. 

édv Ons, Stvacat pe kaBapicar. All three accounts have these 
words, and the reply to them, @éAw, xafapio6y7, without variation. 
The dvvacat is evidence of strong faith in the Divine power of 
Jesus ; for leprosy was believed to be incurable by human means. 


V. 12-14.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 149 


It was “the stroke” of God, and could not be removed by the 
hand of man. But it is characteristic of the man’s imperfect 
apprehension of Christ’s character, that he has more trust in His 
power than in His goodness. He doubts the will to heal. He 
says xa@apioa: rather than Geparetoa: or idcacGar because of the 
pollution which leprosy involved (Lev. xiii. 45, 46). In O.T. 
“unclean” and “clean,” not “sick” and “healed,” are the terms 
used about the leper. The old rationalistic explanation, that 
xafapicot means “to pronounce clean,” and that the man was 
already cured, but wanted the great Rabbi of Nazareth to absolve 
him from the expensive and troublesome journey to Jerusalem, 
contradicts the plain statements of the Gospels. He was “full of 
leprosy” (Lk.); “immediately the leprosy departed from him” 
(Mk. Lk.). If xa@apioa. means “to pronounce clean,” then 
kaOapioOy7t means “be thou pronounced clean.” Yet Jesus sends 
him to the priest (Lk. Mk. Mt.). Contrast the commands of 
Christ with the prayers of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, when they 
healed. 

18. éxrelvas Thy xetpa. All three have this Hebraistic ampli- 
fication. In LXX the phrase commonly occurs in connexion 
with an act of punishment: Ex. vil. 5, 19, Vili. I, 2, 1x. 22, 23, 
Role ot 22, XIV. 16, 27, 26, 275 Ezek. vi. 14, XIV. 9, XVI. 27; 
xv 7) 13, 10, XxXxv. 3; Zeph. 1. 4, i. 135 Jer. vi. 12, xv. 6. In 
N.T. it rarely has this meaning. Jesus touched the leper on the 
same principle as that on which He healed on the sabbath: the 
ceremonial law gives place to the law of charity when the two 
come into collision. His touch aided the leper’s faith. 

4) Aémpa adwhOev dm adtod. Here again (see on iv. 40) Mk. 
has the whole expression, of which Lk. and Mt. each use a part. 
Mk. has aayjAOev aa airod 4 dézpa, kal éxafapicOy, and Mt. has 
exabapiocOy atrod 4 A€rpa. All three have eiOéws or edOvs, showing 
that Jesus not merely prepared the way for a cure which nature 
accomplished, but healed the leper at once by His touch. 

14, kat attés. Lk.’s favourite form of connexion in narrative: 
Peet, 375% 17, 22, 26, il, 23, iv. 15, Vi. 20, €te: 


mapyyyerkev. The word is specially used of commanders | / 


whose orders are passed along the line (apa), and is freq. in Lk. 


(viii. 29, 56, ix. 21; Acts i. 4, iv. 18, v. 28, 40, x. 42, etc.); rare || ./ 
in Mt. (x. 5, xv. 35) and Mk. (vi. 8, viii. 6); not in Jn. All the || 
others use evréh\Aco Oa, and Mt. xeAevewv, both of which are rare in || 


Lk. Here Mt. and Mk. have Aéye. 

pydevi_ ciety. The charge was given with emphasis (dpa 
pydevt_pndiv ecirys) and sternness (éuBpyynodpevos), as Mk. tells 
us. The meaning of it is variously explained. To prevent (1) the 
man from having intercourse with others before being pronounced 
clean by proper authority; (2) the man from becoming proud 


j 
j 


150 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [v. 14 
through frequent telling of the amazing benefit bestowed upon 
him ; (3) the Zves¢s from hearing of the miracle before the man 
arrived, and then deciding, out of hostility to Jesus, to deny the 
cure; (4) the people from becoming unhealthily excited about 
so great a miracle. Chrysostom and Euthymius suggest (5) that 
Christ was setting an example of humility, dddoxwy 76 axopumracrov 
kal aptAdtmor, in forbidding the leper to proclaim His good deeds. 
Least probable of all is the supposition (6) that “ our Lord desired 
to avoid the Levitical rites for uncleanness which the unspiritual 
ceremonialism_ of the Pharisees might have tried to force upon— 
Him” for having touched the leper. The first of these was pro 
ably the chief reason; but one or more of the others may be true 
also. The man would be likely to think that one who had been 
so miraculously cured was not bound by ordinary rules; and if he 
mixed freely with others before he was declared by competent - 
authority to be clean, he would give a handle to Christ’s enemies, 
who accused Him of breaking the law. In the Sermon on the 
Mount He had said, “Think not that I came to destroy the law 
or the prophets” (Mt. v. 17); which implies that this had been 





|| Said of Him. The command pyéevi nde <irys is further evidence 


that Jesus did not regard miracles as His chief credentials. And 
|| there are many such commands (viii. 56; Mt. ix. 30, xii. 16; 
‘Mk. i. 34, ili. 12, V. 43, Vil. 36, Vili. 26). 
GAAQ darehOav SetEov ceavrdy 7G lepet. Sudden changes to the oratzo 
directa are common after wapayyéA\w and similar verbs (Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22 ;.- 


Mk. vi. 8, 9; comp. Acts xvii. 3; Tobit viii. 21; Xen. Anad. i. 3. 16, 20). 
Win. Ixiii. 2, p. 725. 


T@ tepet. As in the original (Lev. xiii. 49), the sing. refers to 


| the priest who was on duty at the time. Note the xa0ds, “exactly 


”: the reference is to Lev. xiv. 4-10, which enjoins rather ex- 


_ pensive offerings. Comp. Mt. i. 24. For the form Mwvojs see 


on ii. 22. This charge is in all three narratives almost in the 
same words. On its import see Hort, /udazstic Christianity, p. 30. 

kaSapiopos. Lmundatio (Vulg.), mundatio (fq) purgatio (a), 
purificatio (d). 

eis paptuptov adtois. ‘This addition is in all three, and various 
explanations have been suggested. That (1) the priests may be 
cenvinced of My Divine power ; (2) the priests may see that I do 
not disregard the Law ; (3) the people may be convinced that the 
‘cure is complete, and that the leper may be readmitted to society ; ; 


-)<(4) the people may see that I do not disregard the Law, _ It is the. 


sacrifice which is the paprvpuov, and therefore the second or fourth 
explanation is to be preferred. Both may be right.} 


1«<«Tt is worthy of notice, that all the places where our Lord is stated to 
have met with lepers are in the central districts of Samaria and Galilee. . . . It 


V. 15, 16.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 151 


15. Sijpxeto Sé paddov 6 Adyos epi adtod. Lk. does not state, 
as Mk. does, that this was owing to the man’s disobedience. Mt. 
omits both points. This use of duépyouar of the spreading of a 
report is quite classical (Thuc. vi. 46. 5; Xen. Azad. i. 4.7). The 
word is a favourite one with Lk.; see on ii. 15. The paddov 
means “more than before, more than ever” (Jn. v. 18, xix. 8), 
or “all the more,” because of the command not to tell (xviii. 39 ; 
Acts v. 14, ix. 22, xxii. 2), 

guvnpxovto SxAot woAAol GKovew kal OepamederOar amd tOv do- 
Qevedv. For miracles mentioned as being numerous, but without 
details, comp. iv. 40, vi. 18, vii. 21. The constr. SeparevecOar dad 
is peculiar to Lk. (vii. 21, viii. 2). The usual constr. with dep. 
is the acc. (iv. 23, 40, ix. 1, etc.). For déo@ever® comp. Vili. 2, xiii. 
11, 12; Acts xxviii. 9; Heb. xi. 34, where we have a similar 
constr., édvvapwOynoav ard aobeveias. 

_ 16. attés 8€ tv Smoxwpdv év tals epypors Kat mpoceuxdpevos. 
The verse forms one of those resting-places with which Lk. fre- 
quently ends a narrative (i. 80, ii. 20, 40, 52, iil. 18-20, iv. 13, 15, 
30, 44). “But He” on His part, in contrast to the multitudes 
who came to see Him, “was in retirement in the deserts, and in 
prayer.” See on iii, 21. The analytical tense expresses what 
Jesus was engaged in while the multitudes were seeking Him. 
That they were unable to find Him is not implied here, and Mk. 
states the opposite. For the adrés comp. iv. 30, vi. 8, viii. 37, 54, 
xi. 17, 28, xxill. 9; and for Groxdpew, ix. 10. The verb occurs 
nowhere else in N.T., but is freq. in class. Grk. Lk. alone uses 


~~ the plur. of épyyds (i. 80, viii. 29). See Bede, ad Loc. 


For év after a verb of motion, to express the rest which is the result of the 
motion, comp. Mt. xiv. 3; Jn. iil. 35; 2 Cor. viii. 16. Such condensed 
constructions are not common, if found at all, in earlier writers. The con- 
verse use of els after verbs of rest is more common (xi. 7, xxi. 37; Acts ii. 39, 
vii. 4, viii. 20, 23, 40, etc.). Win. 1. 4. a, p. 514. 

17-26. The Healing of a Paralytic. Mt. ix. 1-8; Mk. ii. 1-12. 
We again have a narrative which is narrated by all three Synoptists 
in a way which shows that they are using common material. Mt. 
is again the most brief. Mk. and Lk. agree in the details, but 
differ considerably in the wording. Different translations of the 
same Aramaic original, or of two very similar Aramaic originals, 
would account for these similarities and differences. The cast of 
the opening verse is very Hebraistic, as is shown by éyévero, by 
€v pd TOV HuEpady, by Kal adrds, and by dvvapyus Kvpuov jv eis. See 
on iv. 36 and on viii. 22. The év yud trav juepdv is an absolutely 
indefinite expression, which we have no right to limit. Mt. and 
Mk. give no date. The phrase é€vy wa rv is peculiar to Lk. 


is just in this district that to this day we find the colonies of lepers most 
numerous” (Tristram, aster Customs in Bible Lands, p. 19). 


1§2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 17, 18. 


17. @apicato.. The first mention of them by Lk., who assumes 
that his readers know who the Pharisees were. This introduction 
of them stamps them as hostile to Christ ; and we have here the 
first collision in Galilee between Jesus and the authorities at 
Jerusalem. On the Pharisees see Jos. Azz. xiii. 5. 9, x. 6, xvii. 2. 
4, Xvilil. 1. 2, 3; B./ ii. 8.14; Schiirer, Jewish People, II. ii. § 26, 
p. 10; Hausrath, V.Z. Zimes, 1. p. 135; Keim, Jes. of WVaz. i. p. 
321; Edersh. Z. & 7. i. pp. 96, 97, 310-324. 

vopodisdcKahor. The word is formed on the analogy of tepodidac- 
kaos and xopodiddoxados, but is not classical. Elsewhere only 
Acts v. 34 and 1 Tim. i. 7. In all three cases teachers of the 
Jewish Law are meant, and the term is almost a synonym for ot 
ypopparets in the N.T. sense. That they had come ek méons képns 
Tis TadtAatas Kat “loudaias is, of course, a popular hyperbolical 
expression, and illustrates Lk.’s fondness for r@s: comp. vi. 17. 

Suvapyts Kupiou Av eis To idoOar aitév. “The power of Jehovah 
was present for Him to heal with”; ze. for Jesus to employ in 
working miracles of healing. See on iv. 36 and comp. i. 35, xxiv. 
49; Acts vi. 8. Hence miracles are often called dvvapets, or out- 
comes of the power of God. Trench, Syz. xci. The failure to 
see that airdv is the subject, not the object, of idea. produced 
the corrupt reading atrovs (A C D and versions). ‘This corrupt 
reading produced the erroneous interpretation of Kupiov as mean- 
ing Christ. Lk. often calls Christ “the Lord”; but in such cases 
Kvpuos always has the article (vil. 13, x. 1, Xl. 39, xii. 42, xill. 15, 
XVil. 5, 6, xvili. 6, xix. 8, xxil. 61). Kvpos without the article 
means Jehovah (i. 11, ii. 9, iv. 18; Acts v. 19, Vill. 26, 39, xii. 7). 
This verse shows us Jesus armed with Divine power and con- 
fronted by a large body of hostile spies and critics. What follows 
(vv. 19, 26) proves that there was also a multitude of curious 
spectators, who had not declared for either side, like the multitude 
round Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Carmel (1 Kings xviii. 
21). 


Except in quotations from LXX (Mt. xiii. 15; Jn. xii. 40) and one other 
passage (Jn. iv. 47), léo0o1 with act. eae is peculiar to Lk. (vi. 19, ix. 2, 
II, 42, xiv. 4, xxil. 51; Acts ix. 34, x. 38, etc.). 


18, ds fv mapadedupevos. “Here and wherever St. Luke men- 
tions this disease, he employs the verb wapaAveoOar, and never 
awapadutixos. The other N.T. writers use the popular form zapa- 
Aurixds, and never use the verb, the apparent exception to this, 
Heb. xii. 12, being a quotation from the LXX, Is. xxxv. 3. St. 
Luke’s use is in strict agreement with that of the medical writers” 
(Hobart, AZed. Lang. of St. Lk. p. 6). 

éfyjrouv adtov eiceveyxetv. Into the house, although it has not 
yet been stated that Jesus was in a house. Mk. tells us that there 


V. 18, 19.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 153 


were four bearers, and that the place was thronged even about the 
door. For évémov see small print on i. 15. 


19. For 7 with a participle expressing a reason see small print on iii. 9. 
With zolas understand 6d08 and comp. éxeivys (xix. 4). Here we should 
have expected dé, which some inferior MSS. insert in both places. ‘‘ By 
what 4zzd of a way” emphasizes their perplexity. For the omission of 6dés 
comp. iii. 5. Win. xxx. II, lxiv. 5, pp. 258, 738. The classical rv GAws 
illustrates this common ellipse. 


Sia Tov dxdov. “ Because of the multitude”; not “through the 
multitude,” a meaning of &d ¢. acc. which is found only in poetry 
and freq. 11 Hom. It was probably by means of outside steps 
that they “went up on to the top of the house.” Oriental houses 
sometimes have such steps; and in any case ‘adders could be 
used. ‘That the Gna was a dwelling-house is not stated. In bibl. 
Grk. it means a roof rather than a house (Deut. xxii. 8; Josh. ii. 
6, 8), and in N.T. seems to imply a flat roof (xii. 3, xvii. 31 ; Acts 
x. 9; Mk. xu. 15; Mt. x. 27, xxiv. 17). It may have been over 
a large hall on the ground floor. Even if Jesus was teaching in 
the upper room of a dwelling-house (and the Rabbis often taught 
there), the difficulty of getting on to the roof and removing a small 
portion of it would not be very great. Edersh. Asz¢. of J. WV. p. 253. 

Sia Ty Kepapewv KajKay. The verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. 
(Acts ix. 25, x. 11, xi. 5); freq. in class. Grk. Mk. has aweoréy- 
acav Ti otéynv dou Hy, Kai eLopvéavtes yaAdow. We need not 
infer from éfopvgavres that under the tiles was clay or mortar to be 
“dug ou.” But, it there was anything of the kind to be cut 
through and removed, this could easily be done without serious 
consequences to those who were in the crowded room below. 
Men who had so much at stake, and who had got thus far, would 
not desist through fear of sprinkling a few persons with rubbish. 
To make these difficulties, which are very unsubstantial, a reason 
for rejecting the whole narrative as a legend, is rather childish 
criticism. ‘The constructor of a legend would not have made his 
details conspicuously incredible. The suggestion that Jesus was 
in a gallery outside the house, teaching the multitude in the open 
court below, is not helpful. In that case, why unroof the gallery? 
The sick man might have been let down to the front of it. Need- 
less difficulty has been made about rather a simple matter? 

ody 7@ khuvidtw. Lk. alone has his favourite cvv. The sub- 
stantive occurs here only. It is the dim. of xAtvy (viii. 16, xvii. 
34), and perhaps means here a portion of the xAivym mentioned in 
ver. 18. Not all of what had been used to bring him through the 
streets would be let down through the roof. Comp. xAwdpuov 
(Acts v. 15). Double forms of diminutives are not uncommon: 


- For another explanation see Tristram, Zastern Customs, pp. 34, 35+ 


154 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 19-21. 


e.g. yovaixvoyv and yuvaikdpioy (2 Tim. iii. 6); zard~ov (i. 59, 66) 
and qa.odpLov (Jn. vi. 9)3 mivaKov and mivakiovov (i. 63). Mk. has 
the inelegant xpdBarros, grabatus (Acts v. 15, ix. 33), for which 
the Greeks preferred oxiuzrovs or oxipadduov. 

20. i8av thy amictw attay. The faith of the man and of those 
who brought him. All three accounts have the words; but Mt. 
omits the persevering energy which proved how strong their faith 
was. We need not assume that the paralytic himself did not share 
his friends’ confidence. 


For a full discussion of the Weaning of ‘‘ Faith” in the New Testament and 
in some Jewish Writings see detached note on Rom. i. 17. Here it will suffice 
to point out its four main uses for (1) belief in God ; (2) belief in His promises ; 
(3) belief in Christ ; (4) belief in some particular utterance or claim of God or of 
Christ. Of these four the last is the commonest use in the Synoptic Gospels, 
where it generally means belief in the power of Christ, or of God in Christ, to 
work miracles. The efficacy of Christ’s power is commonly dependent upon 
the faith of those who are to be benefited by its exercise, as here. Comp. vii. 
50, viii. 48, xvii. 19, xviii. 42. By an easy transition this faith in the power of 
God or of Christ to work miracles becomes used of the conviction that the 
believer himself has received power to work miracles. Comp. xvii. 6. In 
xviii. 8 the faith to be found on earth means faith in the Son of Man. 


“AvOpwrre, ahewvtal cot at dpaptia. cov. Mk. has réxvoy, and 
Mt. has @dpoe rékvov. It is not likely that Lk., the writer of the 
Gospel of grace for all, has deliberately changed the more tender 
address, because it seemed to be unsuitable to one who must, as 
he thinks, have been a grievous sinner. Comp. xii. 14 and xxii. 
57. And we affirm more than we know, if we say that this absolu- 
tion was necessary for the man’s cure, because otherwise he would 
not have believed that Jesus could heal him, and his faith was 
essential to the cure. He probably believed, and perhaps knew, 
that his malady was the direct consequence of his own sin (xiii. 2 ; 
Jn. v. 14, ix. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 30). But it does not follow from this 
that faith on his part was thus far absent. 

Suidas seems to be right in regarding d¢éwvrat as a Dorie form of the 
perf. indic. for d¢etyrat. But it was admitted rather freely, even by Attic 
writers. Comp. dvéwyrat (Hdt. ii. 165. 1; but the reading is not certain) 
and elw6a from é0w (iv. 6). Win. xiv. 3. a, p. 96; Veitch, s. v. In Mt. and 
Mk. the true reading here is dplevrac: but ddéwvrat occurs again vil. 47, 48; 
I John ii. 12, and probably Jn. xx. 23. Some have regarded it as a sub- 


junctive: vemzssa sunto. Fritzsche (on Mt. ix. 2) pertinently asks, Quo usa 
aut more subjunctivum in talibus locts absolute posttum defendas ? 


21. jpgavto Siadoyifecbar. Not a mere periphrasis for dceAoyi- 
gavro: see on iv. 21. Hitherto they had found nothing in His 
words to excite criticism. Here they seemed to see the oppor- 
tunity for which they had been watching, and their discussions 
forthwith began.1 The ypappartets are evidently the same as the 


1 Tt has been suggested that joav xaOjuevor (Mk. ii. 6) and fptavro (= joav 
Apxébpevor) here are simply different trarislations of the Aramaic verb, which has 


Vv. 21-23.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 155 


vowodiddoKaXo. in ver. 17. Neither Mt. nor Mk. mention the 
Pharisees here ; and both of them imply that the criticisms were 
not uttered aloud: év éavrois (Mt.), év tats xapdéars (Mk.). Even 
here utterance is not stated, for Aéyovres may be used of thoughts 
(xii. 17; Mt. xxi. 25). 

Tis éotiv obtos Ss Aadet BAacpypias ; An accidental iambic line. 
We have another ver. 39, if edf€ws be admitted as genuine. The 
otros is contemptuous, as often (iv. 22, Vii. 39, 49, ix. 9, xiv. 30, 
xv. 2, etc.). In N.T., as in class. Grk., BAacdypia has the two 
meanings of “evil speaking” (Col. iii. 8; Eph. iv. 31; 1 Tim. vi. 4; 
Jude 9: comp. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16) and “ blasphemy” (Mt. xii. 31, 
xxvl. 65; Rev. xiii. 6). These cavillers assume that Jesus has 
claimed to have pardoned the man on His own authority, not 
merely to have said that He knew that his sins have been forgiven 
by God. And Jesus does not say that they are mistaken in this. 
He acts on His own authority in accordance with the will of the 
Father, doing on earth what the Father does in heaven (Jn. v. 19, 
21). For dq¢evae of sins comp. Mt. xii. 31; Mk. iii. 28; Rom. 
iv. 7, etc. ; 

22. emyvols 8é 6 “Ingots Tods Siadoyropods attav. The com- 
pound verb implies thorough and accurate knowledge (1 Cor. 
xiii. 12; Rom. i. 32; Justin, Z77y. ili. p. 221 A). The subst. ézi- 
yvwors is used of “ the knowledge of God and of Christ as being the 
perfection of knowledge: e.g. Prov. ii. 5; Hos. iv. 1, vi. 6; Eph. 
i ¥7, iv. 12, 2 Pet. 1. 1, 2, 8, i. 20; Clem. Alex. Ped. ii. 5, p. 73” 
(Lft. on Col. i. 9). Comp. the climax in AfZost. Const. vii. 39. 1, 
yraors, éxiyvwots, tAynpogopia. On both ériyvwors and diaroyww- 
poovs see Hatch, 5zd/. Grk. p. 8. The latter seems here to mean 
“thoughts” (évOvunoes, Mt. ix. 4) rather than “discussions” 
(ix. 46). In LXX it is used of the counsels of God (Ps. xxxix. 6, 
xcl. 6). It is, however, more often used in a bad sense (Ps. lv. 5, 
xciii. 11, cxlv. 4, etc.), and is specially freq. in Lk. (ii. 35, vi. 8, 
ix. 47, xxiv. 38). Not in Jn., and only once each in Mt. and Mk. 

év Tais kapdiats Spay. This seems to imply that there had been 
no utterance. Christ read their thoughts. See on Rom. i. 21. 

23. ti éotw edkoTtepov, eimety . .. Heimetv. It is in this 
verse and the next that the three accounts are most similar— 
almost verbatim the same. ‘The challenge is a very practical one, 
and the point of it is in the eiwety. It is easier to say, “ Thy sins 
are forgiven,” because no one can prove that they are not forgiven. 
But the claim to heal with a word can be easily and quickly 
tested. 


the very different meanings of “sitting at rest” and “beginning”; or possibl 
of two verbs which are identical in spelling (Zxgosttor, April 1891, p. 28s) 
See on iii. 23. But these possibilities seem to be too isolated and sporadic to 
be of great value in accounting for differences between the Gospels. 


156 TIITE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 23, 24, 


evkomdtepov. Lit. ‘‘more capable of being done with easy labour” (ed, 
kémos). In N.T. always in the comparative (xvi. 17, xvili. 25; Mk. x. 25; 
Mt. xix. 24); but edxomwoy occurs I Mac. iii. 18; Ecclus. xxii. 15. It is 
found in Polyb., but not in class. Grk.—For ris in the sense of ‘‘ whether of 
two” like mérepos, as guzs = uter, comp. xxii. 27; Mt. xxi. 31, xxiii. 17, 
xXvil. 17, 21; Xen. Cy”. iii. 1. 17. 


24. 6 vids tod dvOpémov. This remarkable phrase in all four 
Gospels is invariably used by Christ of Himself; upwards of eighty 
times in all. The Evangelists never use it of Him, and no one 
ever addresses Him by this title. Yet none of the four ever 
directs our attention to this strict limitation in the use of the 
phrase, so that their agreement must be regarded as undesigaed, 
and as evidence of their accuracy. 


In O.T. we have ‘son of man” used in three different connexions, and it 
must be noted that in each case the rendering in LXX is ulds dv@pdémov and not 
6 ulds Tod dvOpwmov. In the Psalms it is used of the ideal man: viii. 4, Ixxx. 16, 
exliv. 3, cxlvi. 3. In Zzekze/ it is the title by which the Prophet is addressed, 
ii. I, 3, 6, 8, iii. 1, 34, etc. etc.; upwards of eighty times in all. In Daniel's 
night visions (vil. 13, 14), *‘ One like a son of man came with the clouds of 
heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days,” and received a dominion which was 
universal and eternal. With this should be compared various passages in the 
Book of Enoch, of which this is specially noteworthy. ‘‘ There I saw one who 
had a head of days, and His head was white like wool; and with Him was a 
Second, whose countenance was like the appearance of a man, and His counte- 
nance was full of grace, like one of the holy angels. And I asked one of the 
angels who were with me, and who showed me all the secrets, concerning this 
Son of Man, who He was, and whence He was, and why He goes with the 
Head of days. And he answered and said to me: This is. the Son of Man who 
has justice, and justice dwells with Him; and all the treasures of secrecy He 
reveals, because the Lord of the spirits has chosen Him, and His portion over- 
comes all things before the Lord of the spirits in rectitude to eternity. And this 
Son of Man, whom thou hast seen, will arouse the kings and mighty from their 
couches, and the strong from their thrones, and will loosen the bands of the 
strong, and will break the teeth of the sinners” (xlvi.). This Son of Man is the 
Messiah. He is called ‘‘ the Anointed ” (xlviii. 11, li. 4), ‘‘the Righteous One” 
(xxxvili. 2, lili. 6), ‘“‘the Elect One” (Zasszm), and the Lord speaks of Him as 
““My Son” (cv. 2). That these Messianic passages in the Book of Enoch are 
of Christian origin is the opinion of a few critics, but it is difficult to maintain it. 
Everything distinctly Christian is absent. This Son of Man or Messiah is not 
the Word, is not God. That He has lived on the earth is nowhere intimated. 
Of the historical Jesus, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, or the Ascension, there 
is not a hint ; nor yet of baptism, or of the eucharist, or of the doctrine of the 
Trinity. Why should a Christian write just what any Jew might accept about 
the Messiah and no more? But if the whole of the Book of Enoch was 
written before the birth of Christ, then we have sufficient evidence to show that 
when Christ was teaching on earth ‘‘Son of Man” was already accepted by the 
Jews as one title, although not a common one, for the Messiah.! The idea of a 
weak and suffering Messiah was unwelcome to the Jews, and therefore a name 


1 Le Livre d’Hénoch, en particulier, lequel étart fort lu dans entourage de 
Jésu: (Jude Epist. 14) ows doune la clef de Pexpression de ‘Fils de Phomme,” 
et des tdées qui sy rattachazent (Renan, V. de /. p. xi.). It is, of course, quite 
possible that the writer of the Book of Enoch took the idea from Daniel. For 
a discussion of the title see Dorner, Person of Chrest, Eng. tr. I. i. p. 54. 


V. 24-26. | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 157 


which emphasized human weakness was not a favourite one. ‘‘ But the very 
reason which induced them to avoid the title induced our Lord to take it. It 
expressed His Messiahship definitely enough for His purpose ; but it expressed it 
iy that veiled and suggestive way which characterised the whole of His teaching 
on His own person. At the same time, it conveyed to those who had ears to 
hear the whole secret of the Incarnation. That which the Jews shrank from 
and ignored He rather placed in the forefront of His mission” (Sanday in the 
Expositor, Jan. 1891, p. 30, art. ‘On the Title, ‘Son of Man’”). 


ént tis y7is- In all three acwounts there is room for doubt as 
tc the words which this expression qualifies. Here either éfouc/av 
éxet Or dduévar Gpaptias, In Mk. and Mt. it may qualify 6 vids Tot 
avOpwrov. It is best taken with efovotay exer. But the difference 
in meaning is not great. 

eimev TS Tapahedupevy. This is not the apodosis to iva eidjre, 
but a parenthesis :! the apodosis to iva «idjre is Bol Aeyw. Note 
the emphasis on oot: “to thee I say the crucial words.” Clement 
of Alexandria gives this address to the paralytic in singularly dif- 
ferent language: dvdora, dyot TO rapepéevw, Tov oKiproda ep dy 
KaTdkeioat AaBwv ame oixade (Ped. i. 2, p. 101, ed. Potter). Prob- 
ably a paraphrase. 

25. twapaxpipa dvactas évémov. Every one of these words is 
characteristic of Lk. For tapaxypjpma Mk. has his equally charac- 
teristic «vs, a feature which recurs Lk. Vili. 44, 55, xviii. 43, 
xxii. 60. Lk. has zrapaxpyya ten times in the Gospel and six times 
in the Acts: elsewhere only Mt. xxi. 19, 20. For avaocrds Mt. 
has éyepOeis and Mk. jyyépOy wat: see on i. 39. For évidarvov abrav 
Mk. has eurpoobev ravtwv. 

dpas ép 6 katéxerto. L/ doit porter maintenant ce grabat qui l’a 
si longtemps porté (Godet). The wording is peculiar to Lk., and is 
perhaps intended to suggest this inversion of relations. Lk. alone 
records that he glorified God. The phrase dofaleuv rov @eov 
is specially common with him (ver. 26, vil. 16, xiii. 13, xvii. 15, 
XViil. 43, xxiil. 47; Acts iv. 21, xi. 18, xxi. 20): once in Mk., twice 
in Mt., once in Jn. 


The reading ¢¢’ 6 (RU A) is an obvious correction to a more usual con- 
struction. For the acc. after a verb of rest comp. xxi. 35; Mt. xiii. 2; Mk. 
iv. 38; Jn. xxi. 4; also Plato, Sym. 212 D, émiorivac él Tas Ovpas. 


26. Exotaors edaBev Gnavtas. Mk. has wdvras, Mt. nothing. 
Lk. is fond of the stronger form. He alone records all three 
emotions—amazement, fear, and gratitude to God. The last is in 
all three. For ékotaois comp. Mk. v. 42, xvi. 8; Acts ili. 10; Gen. 
XxVil. 33; I Sam. xiv. 15; 2 Chron. xiv. 14. Mt., whose narrative 


1 That this parenthesis occurs in exactly the same place in all three proves 
that all three made use of a narrative, the form of which was already fixed, either 
in memory or in writing (Salmon, /7¢. to WV. 7. p- 121, 5thed.). Comp. Lk. 
viii. 28, 29 with Mk. v. 7, 8, where we have similar agreement in arrangement. 


158 | THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 26, 27 


is much the most brief, adds after éddéacav rov @edv, tov Sdvra 
éLoveiay rovavrnv tois dvOpwos, which seems to refer to the pre- 
ceding éfouciav éxe.. He who is ¢he Son of Man, the ideal repre- 
sentative of the race, had vindicated His claim to possess authority 
to forgive sins. 

EtSapev mapdSofa ojpepov. The adj. occurs here only in N.T 
In LXX it is not rare (Judg. xiii. 13; Wisd. v. 2; Ecclus. xliii. 25° 
2 Mac. ix. 24; 4 Mac. ii. 13). It is used of the miracles of Jesus 
in the famous passage, of very doubtful origin, in Josephus: codés 
davnp, €t ye dvdpa airov Aéyew xpy Hv yap Tapaddswv Epywv wownrys 
(Ant. xviii. 3. 3). Whereas évdofa (xiii. 17) has reference to the 
d6&a or glory of the agent, wapddo€éa refers to the dda or opinion of 
the spectators ; but ddfa in the sense of “opinion” or “belief” is 
not found in N.T. For the mixed form of aor. eidayev see small 
print on i. 59, and comp. 1 Sam. x. 14 and 2 Sam. x. 14. 

27-39. The Calling of Levi and the Discussion about Fasting. 
Mt. ix. 9-17; Mk. ii. 13-22. In all three narratives this section 
is connected closely with the healing of the paralytic; but Mt. 
places both incidents much later, viz. after the return from the 
country of the Gadarenes. 


The common identification of Levi with Matthew is probably correct ; but 
his father must not be identified with the father of James the Less. Matthew 
is probably a contraction of Mattathias = ‘‘ Gift of God,” and this name may 
have been given to Levi after His conversion, like that of Peter to Simon. 
Comp. Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus (Acts i. 23). In Galilee it was 
common to have two names ; and therefore both names may have been original. 
But if Levi was the earlier name, and was less well known among Christians, 
that would account for Mk. and Lk. using it, while Mt. equally naturally would 
let it be evident that a reAdvys had become, by Christ’s mercy, the well-known 
Apostle. There can be no reasonable doubt that the three narratives refer to 
the same incident. And, as Levi is mentioned in no list of the Twelve, and 
Matthew is mentioned in all such lists, the identity of Levi the reAdvys with Mt. 
the teAdvys and Apostle need not be doubted. Such doubts, however, are 
ancient. They existed in the Gnostic commentator Heracleon (Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iv. 9, p. 595, ed. Potter), and were shared by Origen. They have been 
reproduced by Grotius (on Mt. ix. 9) and Michaelis; and more recently by 
Sieffert, Neander, Ewald, Keim, and Reuss. But a satisfactory solution, which 
is not contradicted by any evidence, is not to be rejected because it does not 
amount to demonstration. 


27. é&j\Oev. So also Mk., while Mt. has rapaywv éxetOer. 
Departure from the town, rather than from the house, is probably 
meant; and we therefore obtain no evidence as to the site of 
Capernaum. We may place Capernaum away from the lake, and 
yet suppose the reAdvioy to have been close to the shore. The 
customs collected there went to Herod Antipas, not to the imperial 
fiscus (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11. 4, 5; B.//. ii. 6. 3): see on xx. 25. 

€Qedoato tekdvnv. ‘Looked attentively at, contemplated, a 
tax-collector,” as if reading his character. The verb often implics 


Vv. 27-29.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 159 


enjoyment in beholding (vii. 24; Jn. i. 14, 32, 38; 1 Jn.i.1z). For 
the teMGvar sve on iii. 12. The Talmud distinguishes two classes 
of reAGvar: the Gaddat or tax-gatherer (e.g. of income-tax or poll- 
tax), and the Jokes or custom-house officer. The latter was 
specially hated, as having greater opportunities for vexatious 
exactions, especially from the poor. Levi was one of the latter. 
The great commercial route from Acre to Damascus, which con- 
tinued until the crusades as the wa maris, passed the lake at or 
near Capernaum, and gave employment to excisemen (Is. ix. 1). 

évopatt Aevetv. Mk. has Aecvely tov rod “AAdaiov, and Mt. nas 
Maé@@aiov. The fondness of Lk. for é6vémarx in introducing a name 
is here conspicuous. Mt. has Aeyduevov, and Mk. has neither. 
Comp. i. 5, x. 38, xvi. 20, xxili. 50, and over twenty times in the 
Acts. Mt. and Mk. have dvéuare once each. Jn. says évoua 
airé (i. 6, iii. 1, xviil. 10). 

kaOijpevoy emt TO Tehdviov, Excepting in the parallel passages, 
reAwviov does not occur in N.T. Nor is it common elsewhere. 
In Strabo, xvi. 1. 27, it seems to mean “customs, taxes,” and some 
would render ért 76 teAdviov, “to receive the customs.” But it is 
more probable that it means the place where dues were collected, 
“the tol bothe” (Wic.) or “the custom-house” (Rhem.). Comp. 
the similarly formed dexarariov, “ the office of a collector of tenths.” 
Very likely Levi was sitting outside the fortitorium. He must 
have been visible from the outside: the ézi is “at,” not “in.” 

28. xatadimay mwdvra. Lk alone mentions this.! Note the 
characteristic tavra, and comp. ver. 11. The fact illustrates the 
doctrine, to which Lk. often bears witness, that riches are a peril 
and an impediment, and that the kingdom of God is specially 
preached to the poor. The statement is against the supposition 
(D.B. ii. p. 969) that Mt. returned to his business afterwards ; and 
it is quite gratuitous to suppose that the statement is a mere 
reminiscence of ver. 11. In that case why has dd¢iévar been 
changed to xataXetrew ? 


There is a slight awkwardness in xaradurdép preceding dvacrds: the rising 
was the first act in the leaving all and in the following Christ. Both Mt. and 
Lk. represent the following as habitual, jxo\ov@e. Mk. regards the single act 
on this occasion, 7xohov@ncev. With the call, AxoAov@er wor, comp. Jn. i. 44, 
and with the result comp. ver. 11 and Mt. iv. 19, 22. The two combined lead 
one to the view that this is a call to become an Apostle. 


29. émoincev Soxhy peyddny. “Made a great reception” 
(Séxouar) or banquet. The word is peculiar to Lk., who has 
doxnv woveiy again xiv. 13. The phrase occurs in LXX (Gen. 
xxi. 8, xxvi. 30; Esth. i. 3, v. 4, 8). Of course év rH oikig adtod 

1 Ce seul mot suffit. La parole qui venait de guérir le lépreux, de rendre au 
paralysé le mouvement et de renzettre les péchés, transforma soudainement um 
publicain en disciple (Didon, /. C. ch. iii. p. 340). 


160 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 29-81. 


means in Levi’s house, which is not included in xaradirav wavra. 
He was not at his house when he left all. The zdvra refers to his 
whole mode of life, his business as a teAwvys. 


It is strange that any one should understand the words either here or Mk. 
ii. I5 as meaning “‘in the house of Jesus.” Had Jesus a house? If so, how 
improbable that Levi should hold a reception in it! If the narrator had meant 
this, must he not have given the name instead of atrod, which would inevitably 
be misunderstood? Mt. has simply év rq olxlg, which possibly means ‘‘in- 
doors,” as opposed to the outdoor scene él 76 rehkwov. There is no evidence 
that Christ had a house at Capernaum. After the call of Simon and Andrew 
He is entertained in the house of Simon and Andrew (Mk. i. 16, 29); and 
after the call of Levi He is entertained in the house of Levi. The new disciple 
wishes his old friends to make the acquaintance of his new Master. C’est son 
premier acte missconaire (Godet). 


Rv dxXos Todds TehovGv Kal GAXKwv ot Foav per abtay Kataket- 
pevot. This proves that the house was a large one, which the 
house of Jesus would not have been: and it also shows the 
character of the company, for only social outcasts would sit down 
at the same table with reAdvat. 

80. eydsyyufoy of dapicaion kal ot ypappartets adtav. The avray 
means “the scribes of the Pharisees,” ze. who belonged to that 
party. Some scribes were Sadducees. That this is the meaning 
is clear from Mk. ii. 16. It is pointless, and scarcely grammatical, 
to make airév refer to the inhabitants of the place, who have not 
been mentioned. These scribes were probably not invited guests, 
but had entered during the meal, like the woman that was a sinner 
in the house of Simon. The Szzazticus and other authorities omit 
avrav, doubtless because it was not clear what it meant. 


For yoyyvfw, which is not in Mk. or Mt., see Lft. on Phil. ii. 14, and 
Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 39. The Atticists preferred rovOopifw. 
Both are probably onomatop.—Note that here, as in vv. 31, 33 and iv. 43, 
Lk. has mpés c¢. ace. after a verb of speaking, where Mk. (ii. 16-19) has the 
dat. See oni. 13. 


Ava Ti peta Tav Tehwvdv Kai dpaptwhdv éobiete; The single 
article (so in all three) brackets them as one class. In Mt. and 
Mk. the disciples are not included in the charge (éo6/e, not 
éoOierc) ; but they both mention that the disciples were sitting at 
table with Jesus and the reA@vai, and therefore were open to the 
charge. Lk., on the other hand, does not mention that the 
disciples were sitting at table, but his éoGere implies it. With 
Sta ti comp. Exod. v. 14. 


81. In all three accounts Jesus ignores the insinuation against His disciples, 
and answers for Himself. He is responsible for the intercourse with tax- 
collectors and sinners. For ot ty.atvovres Mt. and Mk. have ol laxvorres. 
This looks like a deliberate change made by Lk. for the sake of a word which 
would more definitely express health as opposed to sickness. Like mapaedv- 
uévos for mapadurixds (vv. 18, 24) and léoGat for diacwfeww (vi. 19), these changes 


V. 31-34. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 161 


may be the result of Lk.’s medical training (Hobart, p. 67; Salmon, zt. to 
N.T. p. 129, 5th ed.). But would Lk. have made changes in a report of 
Christ’s words? There would be no need to have scruples, for oi loxvovres is 
only a translation of the Aramaic, and Lk. might think that of dycalvovres was a 
better translation. Christ’s reply is an argumentum ad hominem, partly 
ironical. On their own showing the Pharisees had no need of a teacher, while 
these outcasts were in the greatest need of one. 


82. cis petdvoiav. These words are peculiar to Lk., but in 
some texts have been transferred to Mk. and Mt. Both perdvoua 
and peravoeiv are freq. in Lk. See on xv. 7. Obviously those who 
are really dékaro. do not need to be called to repentance ; but who 
are Sikavou? That is the question which Christ’s reply suggests. 
If we had only Mk.’s account, we might suppose that what follows 
took place on some other occasion ; but both Lk. and Mt. (rére) 
connect it with the banquet in Matthew’s house. 

33. of Sé etmay. The same who asked the previous question, 
viz. the Pharisees and their scribes (ver. 30). Mt. says that it was 
the disciples of John who came up and put this question. Mk. 
states that both the disciples of John and the Pharisees were 
keeping a fast at that very time, and joined in asking why Christ’s 
disciples did not do so also. We know from Jn. iii. 26 how 
jealous the Baptist’s disciples were of Christ, and therefore ready 
to criticize. Perhaps they were also jealous of the freedom from 
legal restraints which His disciples seemed to enjoy. They leave 
an opening for the reply, ‘‘ You have no need to fast.” The four 
words which follow vyorevovow, viz. the words tuxva kai Seqoers 
wowouvtar, are peculiar to Lk. They imply that Christ’s disciples 
habitually neglected the frequent fasts which the disciples of John 
and of the Pharisees kept. The fasts on Mondays and Thursdays 
are probably meant, which were not obligatory, but which some 
Pharisees observed (xviii. 12). Moses was believed to have gone up 
Mount Sinai on a Thursday and to have come down on a Monday. 
The Day of Atonement was the only fast of universal obligation. 
For rrovetoOar Seqoers comp. 1 Tim. ii. 1; it refers to prayers at fixed 
times according to rule. The disciples of Jesus seemed to have no 
rule respecting such things. A late tradition fixes the number of 
the Baptist’s disciples as thirty, answering to the days of the 
month, as the Twelve are supposed to answer to the months of the 
year (Clem. Hom. ii. 23).—xat wivovow. These words also are 
peculiar to Lk. in harmony with xat zivere in ver. 30. 

84. Individuals were at liberty to choose their own days for 
fasting, but they must not select a sabbath or any of the great 
feasts. Christ suggests another exception, which very possibly 
was made by the Pharisees themselves. Is it possible to make 
the guests fast ata wedding? Mt. and Mk. omit the wovetv: Can 
the wedding-guests fast? Would it not be morally impossible to 

II 


162 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [v. 34-36, 


have such a combination? To John’s disciples this parable would 
come home with special force, for their master had called Jesus 
“the Bridegroom,” and himself “the friend of the Bridegroom.” 

tods viods Tod vuydavos. The common Hebraism to express 
those who are closely connected with the vuzdev: comp. x. 6, 
xvi. 8, xx. 36; Acts iv. 36; Mt. xxiii. 15; Jn. xii. 36, etc. In 
1 Mac. iv. 2 of vioi rs axpas means the garrison of the citadel. 
But in LXX such expressions are not very common (1 Kings i. 52; 
2 Sam. xii. 5; Gen. xi. 10). The word vuzddy seems scarcely to 
occur in class. Grk., but it is rightly formed (Tobit Vi.’ T4;257)s 
Comp. rapGevav, yuvaikdy, dvdpdv, Bowv, dyzredwv, k.T.d. 

85. édevoovtat Sé Fcpar. “ But days will come,” é.e. days very 
different from the joyous days of the wedding. It is best to take 
this clause separately. After it there is an aposiopesis, which is 
mournfully impressive ; and then the sentence begins again. 

kal tay dtrap0q dm’ adtay 6 vupdios. There is no «at in Mt 
or Mk., and some texts omit it here, because of its apparent 
awkwardness. We may take the xa/ as beginning a fresh sentence, 
or as epexegetic of the preceding clause. ‘But days will come— 
and when the bridegroom shall be taken away,” etc. Or, “ But 
days will come, yea, days when the bridegroom,” etc. ‘The word 
dzap6y is in all three, and nowhere else in N.T. It is common in 
class. Grk., esp. of the moving of fleets and armies. 

téte vnotedcouow. “Then they will fast””—of their own accord. 
He does not say, “ Then ye will be able to make them fast,” which 
would be the exact antithesis of what goes before; and the change 
is significant. Compulsion will be as superfluous then as it would 
be outrageous now: comp. xvii. 22. This is the first intimation of 
His death and departure, after which fasting will be appropriate 
and voluntary. Its value consists in its being spontaneously 
adopted, not forcibly imposed. This point is further developed in 
the short parables which follow. Note the characteristic év 
€xe(vars Tats 7epacs (not in Mt. ix, 15), and see on ix. 36. 

86. “Edeyev 5é kal tapaBohhy mpds adtovs. These introductory 
words are peculiar to Lk., and the phrase Adyery rapaBorny is 
used by no one else (xii. 41, xili. 6, xiv. 7, xviii. 1, xx. 9). For the 
characteristic $€ kat see small print on iii. 9, and for héyew mpds 
see on i. 13. For pairs of parables see on ver. 37 and xiii. 18. 

G16 tuatiou katvod oxtoas. ‘This also is peculiar to Lk.’s narra- 
tive, and it heightens the effect of the parable. Both Mt. and Mk. 
represent the patch as coming from an unused piece of cloth. To 
tear it from a new garment is an aggravation of the folly. A good 
garment is ruined in order to mend, and that very ineffectually, an 
old one. In all three we have é/8Anya for patch ; in Mt. and Mk. 
wArjpwpa also; and Mk. for émBaAXa has émipdrre. In Plutarch 
and Arrian é7iBAnpa means. “tapestry” for hangings. In the 


V. 36, 37.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 163 


sense of “patch” it seems to occur only in Sym. Josh. ix. 11 (5). 
The Latin translations of é7iBAnpa vary : commissura (Vulg.), insu- 
mentum (a), immissura (a). 


el 52 perjye (el dé 7} ye, Lach. Treg.). ‘‘ But if he acts otherwise,” z.e. if 
he commits this folly. Vz caveat errorem (Grotius). The formula is freq. in 
Lk. (ver. 37, x. 6, xiii. 9, xiv. 32), who never uses el dé uj. El 6¢ wu} ye is 
stronger than el dé yw, and follows both negative (xiv. 32; Mt. ix. 17; 2 Cor. 
xi. 16) and affirmative sentences (x. 6, xiii. 9; Mt. vi. 1). It is found in 
Plato (Rep. ii. 375 C): comp. Hdt. iv. 120. 4. See Fritzsche on Mt. vi. 1 
and Meyer on 2 Cor. xi. 16. 


kal Td kawvov oxicet. “ Both he will rend the new garment ”—- 
in tearing the patch from it. AV. here goes wrong, although 
(except as regards the tense) all previous English Versions were 
right. Reading oxife with A and Vulg. rwmfzt, Wic. Tyn. Cran. 
and Rhem. have “ He breaketh the new,” while Cov. has “ He 
renteth the new.” Beza has “the o/d breaketh the new.” Luther 
and AV. seem to be alone in taking 76 xawvéy as the nom., “ Both 
the new maketh a rent.” With oxioe comp. Jn. xix. 24; Is. 
XXXVii. I. 

kal TO kawvov . . . Kal T@ Tada. The double xaié marks the 
double folly. RV. avoids the awkwardness of “ Soth he will rend 
. . . and the piece,” etc., by rendering, “He willrend . . . and 
also the piece,” etc. The combination with xait 7@ wadag shows 
that 76 xawvdy is object and not subject. 

As to the precise meaning, interpreters are not agreed, beyond 
the general truth that a new spirit requires a new form. But the 
piece torn from the new garment is probably exemption from fast- 
ing. To deprive Christ’s disciples of this freedom, while He is with 
them, would be to spoil the system in which they are being trained. 
And to impose this exemption upon the disciples of John and the 
Pharisees, would also spoil the system in which they have been 
trained. In the one case fasting, in the other non-fasting, was the 
natural outcome of the environment. For a variety of interpreta- 
tions see Godet, who in his third ed. has changed his own (1888). 
87. This second parable carries on and develops the teaching 

of the first. We have similar pairs of parables in the Mustard-seed 
and the Leaven, the Treasure hid in the Field and the Pearl of 
great price, the Ten Virgins and the Talents, the Lost Sheep and 
the Lost Coin, the Unwise Builder and the Unwise King. In three 
respects this second parable differs from the first. (1) The piece 
of new cloth represents only a fragment of the new system ; the 
new wine represents the whole of it. (2) The new garment and 
the old one are only marred; the new wine is lost and the old 
skins are destroyed. (3) Not only is the wrong method con- 
demned, the right method is indicated (4AAG . . . BAnréov). The 
argument is @ fortiorz. If it is a mistake to take the natural out 


164 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE ‘V. 87-39. 


come from one system and force it upon an alien sys'em, much 
more fatal will it be to try to force the whole of a new and grow- 
ing system into the worn out forms of an old one. “I thank Thee, 
O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these 
things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto 
babes” (x. 21). The scribes and Pharisees, wise in the letter of 
the law, and understanding their own cramping traditions, were 
incapable of receiving the free spirit of the Gospel. Young and 
fresh natures, free from prejudice and open to new light and new 
impressions, were needed to receive the new word and preserve it 
unchecked and untramelled for future generations. On the fitness 
of the twofold parable to the occasion Bengel remarks, pavrabolam 
a veste, a vino: imprimis opportunam convivio. 

ovdets Bddder oivov véov eis dokods tadaods. For BadXew of 
pouring liquids comp. Jn. xili. 5; Mt. xxvi. 12; Judg. vi. 19; 
Epictet. iv. 19. 12. Skin-bottles, w¢ves, are still in use in the East, 
made of a single goat-skin (Hom. JZ. iii. 247), from which the flesh 
and bones are drawn without ripping up the body. The neck of 
the animal becomes the neck of the bottle. Gen. xxi. 14, 15, 19; 
Ps. cxix. 83. Comp. Hdt. ii. 121. 20, iii. 9. 2; Hom. Od. v. 265. 
In Job xxxii. 19 it is said that even new skins are ready to burst 
when they are full of new wine: comp. xxxvill. 37. See Herzog, 
PRE’? art. Schiauch; Tristram, Wat. Hist. of B. p. 92. 

88. oivoy véov eis doKxols Katvols BAntéov. Here certainly, and 
perhaps here only in N.T., the difference between véos and kauds 
must be marked in translation: ‘“ /Vew wine must be put into fresh 
wine-skins.” While véos is new in reference to “me, “young” as 
opposed to “aged,” xa.vdés is new in reference to guality, “fresh” 
as opposed to “worn out.” Trench, Syz. lx.; Crem. Lex. p. 321. 
But “a fresh heaven and a fresh earth” (2 Pet. iii. 13; Rev. xxi. 1), 
and still more a “fresh Jerusalem” (Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2), would be 
intolerable. No English version prior to RV. distinguishes here 
between véos and xawds; and Vulg. has zovus for both. None 
translates doxot “skins” or ‘wine-skins,” but either ‘ bottles” 
(Wic. Cran. Rhem. AV.) or “vessels” (Tyn. Cov. Gen.). The 
conclusion, kat dudorepor ovvrypodvrat, is an interpolation from Mt. 
ix. 17 (§BL and Aegyptt. omit). 

89. This third parable is peculiar to Lk. While the first two 
show how fatal it would be to couple the new spirit of the Gospel 
with the worn out forms of Judaism, the third shows how natural it 
is that those who have been brought up under these forms should 
be unwilling to abandon them for something untried. The con- 
version of an outcast teAwvys, who has no such prejudices, may be 
easier than one whose life is bound up in the formalism of the past. 
Grotius, starting from Ecclus. ix. 13, oivos véos gidos véos: édv 
radaw6h, per’ eippootvys miecat airov, interprets: Significavit hin 


V. 39-VI. 1.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 165 


proverbio Christus homines non subito ad austeriorem vitam pertra- 
hendos, sed per gradus quosdam assuefaciendos esse; which implies 
that Christ considered Jewish fasting the more excellent way, up 
to which His disciples must be gradually educated. Moreover, the 
subito on which this explanation turns is an interpolation: «iééws 
is not genuine (8B C!L, Boh. A‘th. Arm. omit). Wetstein quotes 
a multitude of passages to show that old wine was considered to 
be superior to new, and concludes; Pharisxorum austeritas com- 
paratur vino novo, Christi lenitas vino veteri ; which exactly inverts 
the parable. The comparative merits of the old and the new wine 
are not touched by the parable, but the /as¢e for them. One who 
is accustomed to old will not zw7shk for new: it does not attract him 
by look or fragrance. 


Aéyer yap: ‘O madatds xpyotds éotiv. The reading of A C and Vulg. 
(xpnorérepos, melzus) is a manifest corruption. The prejudiced person will 
not even try the new, or admit that it has azy merits. He knows that the old 
is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough: he is not going to change. 
Phariszts doctrina sua antiqua magts erat ad palatum, quam generosa doctrina 
Jesu, quam wi putabant esse novana (Beng.), and which they would not even 
taste. Comp. Rom. vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. If we admit the undoubtedly 
spurious ev@éws, we have another iambic line in this verse as in ver. 21: miwy 
mahavov ev0éws Peder véov. The whole verse is omitted in D and in most of 
the best MSS. of the old Latin; but WH. seem to be alone in placing it in 
brackets as of doubtful authority. On the three parables see Trench, Studzes 
in the Gospels, pp. 168-183. 


VI. 1-5. The first Incident on the Sabbath (see Maurice, Zec- 
tures on St. Luke, p. 823, ed. 1879). The Call of Peter was followed 
by two healings which provoked opposition to Christ: and now the 
Call of Levi is followed by two incidents on the sabbath, which 
lead to similar opposition. Mk. agrees with Lk. in placing these 
two immediately after the call of Levi; Mt. has them much later 
(xii. 1-14). On the connexion here see Schanz, ad /oc. 

1. év caBBdtw Seutepompdte. This passage is a well-known 
crux in textual criticism and exegesis. Is devrepotpdrw part of the 
true text? Ifso, what does it mean? ‘The two questions to some 
extent overlap, but it is possible to treat them separately. 


1. The external evidence is very much divided, but the balance is against 
the words being original.1 The reading is Western and Syrian, and ‘‘has no 
other clearly pre-Syrian authority than that of Daf” The internal evidence is 
also divided. On the one hand, ‘‘ The very obscurity of the expression, which 
does not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its genuine- 
ness” (Scriv.), for ‘‘there is no reason which can explain the insertion of this 


lins ACDEHKMRSUVXIAATI most cursives, Vulg. Syr-Harcl. 
Goth. Arm., Epiph. Chrys. Greg-Naz. Amb. Hieron. and perhaps 
Clem-Alex. 
om. © B L six or seven good cursives, Syrr. Boh. Aeth. That evangelistaria 
omit is not of much moment, as they often omit notes of time. 





166 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VL L 


word, while the reason for omitting it is obvious” (Tisch.) On the other hand, 
‘“all known cases of probable omission on account of difficulty are limited to 
single documents or groups of restricted ancestry, bearing no resemblance to the 
attestation of text in either variety or excellence” (WH.). Moreover, if any 
sabbath had really borne this strange name, which is introduced without explan- 
ation as familiar to the readers, it would almost certainly have been found 
elsewhere, either in LXX, Philo, Josephus, or the Talmud. In the life of 
Eutychius (512-582) by his chaplain Eustathius devrepompwrn kupiaxy is used of 
the first Sunday after Easter, but the expression is obviously borrowed from this 
passage, and throws no light. In the whole of Greek literature, classical, 
Jewish, or Christian, no such word is found independently of this text. The 
often quoted devreposexdrn, ‘‘second tenth” (Hieron. ad Zz. xlv. 13), gives no 
help. The analogy of devrepoyduos, devrepordkos, x.T.d., Suggests the meaning 
of ‘‘a sabbath which for a second time is first”; that of deuvrepéoxaros, which 
Heliodorus (afud Soran. Med. vet.) uses for ‘‘ last but one,” suggests the mean- 
ing ‘‘first but one,” z.e. ‘‘second of two firsts.” But what sense, suitable to 
the passage, can be obtained from either of these? The more probable conclusion 
is that the word is spurious. 

How then did it get into the text and becume so widely diffused? The con- 
jecture of Meyer is reasonable. An early copyist inserted mpwrw to explain év 
érépw caBBdrw in ver. 6; this was corrected to devrépw because of iv. 31; and 
the next copyist, not understanding the vorrection, combined the two words. 
A few MSS. have the reading devrépw mpwrw, among them R (Cod. Nitriensis), 
a palimpsest of the sixth cent. in the British Museum. See Knight’s Field. 

2. If the word is genuine, what can he its meaning? Jerome put this ques- 
tion to Gregory Nazianzen, and the latter v/eganter luszt, saying, Docebo te super 
hac re tn ecclesta (Hieron. £%. lii.). Of the numerous conjectures the following 
may be mentioned as not altogether incredible. (1) The first sabbath of the 
second year in a sabbatical cycle of seven years. This theory of Wieseler has 
won many adherents. (2) The first sabbath in Nisan. The Jewish civil year 
began in Tisri, while the ecclesiastical year began in Nisan; so that each year 
there were two first sabbaths, one according to civil, the other according to 
ecclesiastical reckoning: just as Advent Sunday and the first Sunday in January 
are each, from different points of view, the first Sunday in the year. It would 
be possible to call the second of the two ‘‘a second first Sunday.” But would 
anyone use such language and expect to be understood? (3) The first sabbath 
of the second month. It is asserted that the story of David obtaining the shew- 
bread would often be in the lesson for that sabbath. But the lectionary of the 
synagogues in the time of Christ is unknown. See on iv. 17. For other guesses 
see Godet, McClellan, and Meyer. Most editors omit or bracket it. Tisch. 
changed his decision several times, but finally replaced it in his eighth edition. 


StaropeveoOar adtév 81a omopipwv. Excepting Rom. xv. 24, the 
verb is peculiar to Lk. (xiii. 22, xvili. 36; Acts xvi. 4). In N.T. 
odpty.os occurs only here and parallels. In Theophr. (Z& P. vi. 5. 4) 
we have 7) oropipy, sc. yj. In Gen, i. 29 it is applied te tire seed, 
wavTa xOptTov ordpimov areipov omrépya.; SO that, like ometcerOau, it 
can be used either of the field or of the seed. 

értAAov of pabyntal adtod Kat yoO.ov tods otdxuvas. For this 
Mk. has 4p£avto 6d6v roeiy TiAXOvTEs TOUS oTdXvas, Which has been 
interpreted to mean “ began to make a way by plucking the ears.” 
But (1) all three imply that Jesus was walking in front of the dis- 
ciples. What need was there for them to make a way? (2) How 
would plucking the eavs make a path? (3) In LXX 6d6v qoteiy is 


VI. 1-4] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 167 


used for zter facere (Judg. xvii. 8). All three mean that the 
disciples went along plucking the ears. This was allowed (Deut. 
Xxili, 25). 

Wdxovtes tats xepotv. This and the riAAovres constituted the 
offence: it was unnecessary labour on the sabbath. According to 
Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, thrashing, winnowing, and pre- 
paring food all at once. Lk. alone mentions the rubbing, and the 
word Wo xew seems to occur elsewhere only in the medical writer 
Nicander (Zheriaca, 619). It is from the obsolete ya, a collat. 
form of yaw. Comp. Hdt. iv. 75. 2. For the action described see 
Robinson, es. in Pal. i. pp. 493, 499. 

2. tweés Sé€ Tav dapicaiwy, As in ver. 30, they are represented 
as addressing their question to the disciples. In Mk. ii. 24 and 
Mt. xii. 2 the charge against the disciples is addressed to Christ, 
while in Mk. ii. yg and Mt. ix. 11 the charge against Christ is 
addressed to the disciples. The tots od4BBac.w may mean either 
“on the sabbath days” (AV. and most English Versions) or “on 
the sabbath day” (RV.). Although Vulg. has 7” sadbdatis, Wic. 
has “in the saboth”; Cov. also “upon the sabbath.” See on 
iv. 31. 

8. o05€ todTo dvéyvwre 6 ewoinoev Aaueid. ‘Have ye not read 
even this that David did?” Does your knowledge not extend 
even thus far? RV. follows AV. in translating 0 évofyjoev as if it 
were the same as the vé éroinoey of Mt. and Mk., “what David 
did.” 

kat ot pet adtod Sytes. “The young men,” whom David was 
to meet afterwards. He came to Nob alone (1 Sam. xxi. 1), 

4. cionOev cis tov oixov toi Ocod, ‘This is not stated in O.T., 
but may be inferred from his being seen by Doeg the Edomite, 
who was “detained before the Lord”: ze. he was in the tabernacle 
as a proselyte, perhaps to be purified, or to perform a vow. 

Tols dptods THs mpolecews. Lit. “the loaves of the setting 
forth.” These were the twelve loaves of wheaten bread placed 
before the Lord, in the Holy Place every sabbath. The word 
“shewbread” first appears in Coverdale, probably from Luther’s 
Schaubrote. Wic. follows the panes propositionis of Vulg. with 
“looves of proposisiounn,” which is retained in Rhem. Tyn. has 
“loves of halowed breed.” In O.T. we have also dprou rod 
mpoowrov, 7.¢. of the presence of God (1 Sam. xxi. 7; Neh. x. 33), 
Or dprou évesarior (Exod. xxv. 30), Or Gprou Tis mpoapopas (1 Kings 
vii. 48), Or again of dprot of Siazayrds, ze. “the perpetual loaves” 
(Num. iv. 7). But the expression used here, Mt. xii. 4 and Mk. 
ii, 26, occurs Exod. xxxix. 36?, xl. 23; 1 Chron. ix. 32, xxiii, 29: 
comp. 2 Chron. iv. 19. For the origin of 4 zpoOco.s trav dprwv 
(Heb. ix. 2) comp. 2 Chron. xiii. 11, xxix. 18. See Edersh. Zhe 
Temple, pp. 152-157; Herzog, PRE.? art. Schaubrote. 


168 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 4-6, 


€dwxev kal Tots pet attov. This also is not stated in 1 Sam. 
xxi., but it is implied in David’s asking for jive loaves, and in 
Abimelech’s asking whether the wallets of the young men were 
Levitically clean. For éfeotw ¢. acc. et inf. see on xx. 22. 

5. Kupids éotiv tod caBBdtou 6 vids tod avOpdrou. In all three 
accounts Kvpios comes first with emphasis. The Son of Man con- 
trols the sabbath, not is controlled by it. This does not mean 
that He abrogates it (Mt. v. 17-20), but that He has power to 
cancel the literal observance of it in order to perform or permit 
what is in accordance with its spirit. Mk. gives the additional 
reason that “the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the 
sabbath,” ¢.e. that it was given to be a blessing, not a burden. 
Even the Rabbis sometimes saw this; ‘‘The sabbath is handed 
over to you; not, ye are handed over to the sabbath” (Edersh. 
L. & T. ii. p. 58). Ritual must give way to charity. The Divine 
character of the Law is best vindicated by making it lovable; and 
the Pharisees had made it an iron taskmaster. And, if the sabbath 
gives way to man, much more to the Son of Man. In Jn. v. 17 
Christ takes still higher ground. The Father knows no sabbath in 
working for man’s good, and thy Son has the same right and 
liberty. For 6 vids tod dvOpdmou see on v. 24. The point here is 
that Christ as the representative of man defends man’s liberty. 


Cod. D transfers ver. 5 to after ver. 10, and instead of it has the remarkable 
insertion : 77 atrq Auépa Ocacduerds Twa épyafduevoy TH caBBdrw elev abr‘ 
GvOpwre, el pev oldas tl morets, waxdpos el’ ef O€ pH oldas, émtkardparos Kal 
mwapaBdrns el rod vouov. For dvOpwire comp. xii. 14; émixatdparos, Jn. vil. 47 5 
mapaBdarns vouov, Rom. ii. 25, 27; Jas. ii. 11. It is possible that the tradition 
here preserved in Cod. D is the source from which both S. Paul and S. James 
derive the phrase rapaBdrns véuov. In Rom. ii., where it occurs twice, we have 
the address dv@pwme twice (vv. 1, 3). There is nothing incredible in Christ’s 
having seen a man working (not necessarily in public) on the sabbath. The 
words attributed to Christ are so unlike the undignified, silly, and even immoral 
inventions in the apocryphal gospels that we may believe that this traditional 
story is true, although it is no part of the Canonical Gospels. D has other con- 
siderable insertions Mt. xx. 28 and Jn. vi. 56. See A. Resch, 4Agrapha 
Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente (Leipzig, 1889) pp. 36, 189. 


6-11. The Second Incident on the Sabbath. Mt. xii. 9 would 
lead us to suppose that it was the same sabbath (peraPas éxetOev 
7Abev). Lk. definitely states that it was év érépw caBBdrw, but not 
that itwas “on the very next sabbath following.” He alone 
mentions that Jesus taught in the synagogue on this occasion, and 
that the withered hand that was healed was the right one. 


6. ’Eyévero 52 . . . elondOciv airiv . . . kali... xalfv. Thesame 
Hebraistic constr. as in ver. I, somewhat modified in accordance with classical 
usage: see note at the end of ch. i. We have éypol at the Pool of Bethesda 
(Jn. v. 3); but outside N.T. the word seems to mean, when applied to the 
human body, either “not wet” or “lean.” 


VL 7-9.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 169 


7. mapetnpoovto Sé abtév of ypappatets kat ot Gapicato. Lk. 
alone tells us who the spies were. Mt. puts their inquisitiveness 
into words, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” The verb 
signifies “watch narrowly,” esp. with sinister intent, perhaps from 
looking sideways out of the corner of one’s eyes, ex obliguo et 
occulto. As in Gal. iv. 10, the mid. gives the idea of interested 
observance. Mk. has zaperjpovy: comp. xx. 20; Sus. 12, 15, 16; 
Polyb. xvii. 3. 2; Aris. Pet. ii. 6. 20; Top. viii. 11. 1. 

ei év TG caBBdtw Oepameder. The present has reference to His 
habitual practice, of which His conduct on this occasion would be 
evidence. But 8B with other authorities read Gepavevoe, which 
is probably genuine in Mk. iii. 2, and may be genuine here. The 
future would limit the question to the case before them 


tva eUpwow Katnyopetv attéy. According to what is probably the 
invariable rule in N.T. we have the subj. in spite of the past tense on 
which the final clause is dependent. The opt. for this purpose is obsolete ; 
for yvot (Mk. ix. 30) and similar forms are probably meant to be subj. 
Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 107. 


8. adrds Sé 7Set Tods Siadoyicpods adtay. ‘ But He,” in contrast 
to these spies (v. 16, viii. 37, 54) “knew their thoughts.” For 
Stahoytopds Comp. ii. 35, V. 22, ix. 46, xxiv. 38. It commonly 
means intellectual and inward questioning rather than actual dis- 
puting: but see on v. 22 and comp. 1 Tim. ii. 8. 

TO dvdpt TH Enpdv Exovte thy xelpa. “To the man who had 
Ais hand withered,” not “who had the withered hand.” For dvdpt 
comp. v. 12: Mt. and Mk. have av@parrw. 

"Eyeipe kal oO eis TO pécov. Lk. alone preserves this. 
Christ’s method is as open as that of His adversaries is secret. 
‘“s Arise and stand zz/o the midst” ; z.e. “Come into the midst and 
stand there”: comp. xi. 7; Acts vill. 40. Win. 1. 4. b, p. 516. 
In what follows note Lk.’s favourite dvag7vds (i. 39), which neither 
Mt. nor Mk. has here. 


None of them records any words of the man ; but Jerome in commenting on 
Mt. xii. 13 states, 2 evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionite ... home 
zste guz aridam habet manum cemmentarius scribitur, istiusmodt vocibus 
auxtilium precans, Cementarius eram, manibus victum queritans : precor te, 
Jesu, ut mihé restitues sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos. See on xviii. 25. 


9. “Emepwrjcw ipas, et. He answers the questioning in their 
hearts by a direct question which puts the matter in the true light. 
To refuse to do good is to do evil; and it could not be right to do 
evil on the sabbath. 


The reading of TR., émepwrijow tuas rt, is wrong in both variations; and 
has the disadvantage of being ambiguous, for 7: may be indefinite or intere 
rogative. ‘TI will ask you something, Is it lawful?” etc. Or, “I will ask 
you what is lawful,” etc. 


170 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 9-11. 


Wuxhvy cdoat % dmokéoor. It was a principle of the Rabbinists 
that periculum vite pellit sabbatum; but the life must be that of a 
Jew. This canon was liberally interpreted ; so that a large number 
of diseases might be attended t» on the sabbath, as being 
dangerous. These modifications of the rigid rule were based on 
the principle that it was lawful to do good and avert evil on the 
sabbath ; and to this Jesus appeals. If the Pharisees said, “ This 
man’s life is not in danger,” the answer would have been easy, 
“You do not know that, any more than in the cases always 
allowed.” The addition of 9 drodéca: has special point, for this 
was what these objectors were doing. ‘They did not consider that 
they were breaking the sabbath in plotting to destroy Jesus on 
this day (ver. 7). Were they to be allowed to destroy, while He 
was forbidden to save? 

10. mepiBdepdpevos mdvtas adtots. Mk. adds, still more 
graphically, per’ dpyns, ovAAvTovpevos ert TH Twpwce THS Kapdias 
aitév: but rdvras is peculiar to Lk. See on vii. 35 and ix. 43. 
Mt. omits the whole of this, but inserts the case of the sheep 
fallen into a pit. Lk. has a similar question about an ass or ox 
fallen into a well, which was asked on another occasion (xiv. 5). 

"Extewov Thy xelpd cou. As His challenge to His enemies 
remained unanswered, He now makes trial of the man. The 
attempt to obey this command was evidence of his faith. 


With the double augment in darexareord0n comp. émpotragta, émpoeprjrevor, 
éxaTeckevacar, ésuveuapripovr, npepiorat, which occur in various writers. 
Exod. iv. 7, dmexazéorn; Jer. xxiii. 8, dmexaréorncev; Ign. Smyr. xi., 
dmexateoTd0n. Win. xii. 7. a, p. 84. 

Cod. D here inserts ver. 5. 


11. avolas. The phrensy or loss of reason which is caused by extreme 
excitement ; dementia rather than zwszpzentia (Vulg.) or amentia (Beza). 
Plato distinguishes two kinds of avo, 7d pev pavlay, 7d 8 dpablay (Zem. 
86 B). It is the former which is intended here. Elsewhere 2 Tim. iii. 9; 
Prov. xxii. 15 ; Eccl. xi. 10; Wisd. xv. 18, xix. 3; 2 Mac. iv. 6, etc. 


ti av momoaev. “What they should do,” if they did any- 
thing. In Lk. the opt. is still freq. in indirect questions: see on 
ili. 15. Mk. says that the Pharisees forthwith took counsel with the 
Herodians how they might destroy Him (droAécwow). They 
would be glad of the assistance of the court party to accomplish 
this end. With their help Antipas might be induced to treat 
Jesus as he had treated the Baptist. Lk. nowhere mentions the 
Herodians. 


The Acolic form rovjceay is not found in the best MSS. here, In Acta 
xvii. 27 Wnagyjoeay is probably genuine. 


VI. 12, 13.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 171 


VI. 12-VII1. 56. From the Nomination of the Twelve to their 
First Mission. 


In proportion as the work of Christ progresses the opposition 
between Him and the supporters of moribund Judaism is in- 
tensified. . 


12-16. The Nomination of the Twelve. Common to all 
three: comp. Mk. iii. 13-19; Mt. x. 2-4. JL’élection des Douse est 
le premier acte organisateur accompli par Jésus-Christ. Sauf les 
sacrements, Cest le seul. Car Cétait ce college, une fois constitué, qui 
devait un jour faire le reste (Godet). 

12. év tais *pépats tr. See on i, 39. This expression, like 
éyévero and 7 with the participle, are characteristic of Lk., and are 
not found in the parallels in Mt. and Mk. For the constr. comp. 
ov. 1 and 6; for mpocedgéac8a. see Introd. § 6. The momentous 
crisis of choosing the Twelve is at hand, and this vigil is the pre- 
paration for it. 


Stavuxtepevov. Here only in N.T., but not rare elsewhere; Job ii. 9 
(where LXX has much which is not in the extant Heb.); Jos. Am#. vi. 


13.9; B. /. i. 29. 2; Xen. Hellen. v. 4. 3. The analytical tense emphasizes 
the long continuance ‘of the prayer. 


TH] Tpocevxf Tod Geos. The phrase occurs nowhere else. It 
means prayer which has God for its object: comp. GjAos @eod 
(Rom. x. 2); 6 &HAos Tod olkov cov (Jn. ii. 17) ; riots *Inood (Gal. 
ili, 22), Win. xxx. 1. a, p. 231.1 That apocevyy here means an 
oratory or place of prayer is incredible: see on Acts xvi. 13. 
Lightfoot says that some Rabbis taught that God prays: “ Let it 
be My will that My mercy overcome My wrath.” But such trifling 
has no place here. 

13. éyéveto ijpépa. The phrase is freq. in Lk. (iv. 42, xxii. 66; 
Acts xii. 18, XVI. 35, XXill. 12, xxvii. 29, 33, 39).—mpooepdynger. 
“Called to Him, summoned. » This is the more correct use of 
the word. Elsewhere in N.T. it means “ address, call to” 3 and, 
excepting Mt. xi. 16, it is used only by Lk. (vii. 32, xiii, 12, 
XXili. 20; Acts xxi. 40, xxil. 2).—rols pafytds. These are the 
larger circle of disciples, out of whom He selected the Twelve. 
Comp. Jn. vi. 70; Mt. xix. 28; Rev. xxi. 14. That either the 
larger circle or the Twelve had spent the night with Him is neither 
stated nor implied. 

éxdeEdpevos. This implies the telling over (Aéyev) in preference 
to others (éx) for one’s own advantage (mid.), The word is fatal 


} Green compares én’ etceBelg cod (Jos. Anz. ii. 8, 1) and mpds Ixerelay Tod 


Geod (ii. 9. 3): and, for the art. before mpocevyq ‘‘as an abstract or general 
term,” Mt. xxi. 22; Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. vii. 5 (Gram. of N.T. p. 87). 


172 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VL 18, 14. 


to Lange’s theory that Judas was forced upon our Lord by the 
importunity of the other Apostles (Z. of C. ii. p. 179). 

ols Kal dmoctédous avépacev. Not at the time possibly, but 
afterwards. The xai marks the naming as a separate act from the 
election. The word dméctodos is used only once each by Mt. 
(x. 2), Mk. (vi. 30), and Jn. (xiii. 16); by Lk. six times in the 
Gospel (ix. fo, xi. 49, XVil. 5, Xxli. 14, xxiv. 10) and often in the 
Acts. In the Gospels the Twelve are generally cad/ed the Twelve. 
The word occurs once in LXX, éya cius ddareAos rpds oe oKAypos 
(x Kings xiv. 6); and once in N.T. it is used of Christ (Heb. iii. 1). 
See Lft. Galatians, pp. 92-101, 6th ed.; D.Z.? art. “ Apostle” ; 
Harnack in Texte u. Untersuch. ii, 111 ff.; Sanday on Rom. i. 1. 
The theory that Lk. writes in order to depreciate the Twelve, does 
not harmonize with the solemn importance which he assigns to 
their election. And criticism is out of harmony with itself, when 
it adopts this theory, and then suggests that Lk. has invented this 
early election. See on xxii. 45. 


14-16. In construction the twelve names are in apposition to daocréXovs, 
and the narrative is not resumed until ver. 17. The four lists of the Apostles 
eh ed in the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts agree in two main features. 

The names are arranged in three groups of four. 2. The same Apostles, 
Peter, Philip, and James of Alphzeus, stand first in each group. Only in respect 
of one name is there material difference between the lists. In the third group 
Lk. both here and Acts i. 13 has Judas of James; for whom Mt. (x. 3) and 
Mk. (iii. 18) have Thaddzeus or Lebbzeus. In both places Thaddzeus is proh- 
ably correct, Lebbzeus being due to an attempt to include Levi among the 
Apostles. Levi = Lebi or Lebbi, the Greek form of which might be LeS8atos, 
as Qaddaios of Thaddi. Some MSS. read LeSatos, which is still closer to Levi. 
See WH. ii. App. pp. 12, 24. The identification of Thaddzeus with Judas of 
James solves the difficulty, and there is nothing against it excepting lack of direct 
evidence. No pairing of the Apostles is manifest in this list as in that of Mt. 
If the xal after Qwudy be omitted, there is a break between the second and third 
group; but otherwise the list is a simple string of names. In the first six 
names Lk. agrees with the first three pairs of Mt. In the other six he places 
Matthew before Thomas (while Mt. places himself last in his group) and Simon 
Zelotes before Judas of James. 


14. Xipeva dv kai dvopacev Métpov. The similarity to the pre- 
ceding clause is marked. This certainly does not mean that Simon 
received the name of Peter on this occasion, and there is nothing 
to show that the Twelve received the name of Apostles on this 
occasion. But it should be noticed that henceforth Lk. always 
speaks of him as Peter (vill. 45, 51, ix. 20, 28, 32, 33, xii. 41, etc.) 
and not as Simon. In xxii. 31 and xxiv. 34 Lk. is quoting the 
words of others. Hitherto he has called him Simon (iv. 38, v. 3, 
4, 5, 10) and once Simon Peter (v. 8), but never Peter. In the 
Acts he is never called Simon without the addition of the surname. 
The usage with regard to the names Saul and Paul is very similar. 
See papers by Dean Chadwick on “The Group of the Apostles” 


VI. 14, 15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 173 


and on “Peter” in Expositor, 3rd series, vol. ix. pp. 100-114, 
187-199, 1889; also Schanz, ad Joc. p. 216. 

*Avdpéav. Only in his lists of the Apostles does Lk. mention 
Andrew. Mt. mentions him on one other occasion, and Mk. on 
three others (Mt. iv. 18; Mk. i. 16, 29, xiii. 3). Nearly all that we 
know about him comes from Jn. (i. 41, 45, vi. 8, xii. 22). Although 
one of the earliest disciples, he does not become one of the chosen 
three, although Mk. xiii. 3 seems to indicate special intimacy. For 
legends respecting him see Lipsius, Apokryphen Afostelgeschichten 
u. Apostellegenden, i. pp. 543-622 ; Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, 

- 17; 34- 

4 *IdkwBov Kat "lwdvyv. This is their order according to age, and 
it is observed in all three Gospels ; in Acts i. 13 John precedes 
James. The fact that James was the first of the Twelve to be put 
to death is evidence that he was regarded as specially influential. 
James and John were probably first cousins of the Lord; for, 
according to the best interpretation of Jn. xix. 25, their mother 
Salome was the sister of the Virgin Mary. That the title of 
Boanerges was given to them “at the time of the appointment of 
the Twelve” (D.B.? i. p. 1509) is a baseless hypothesis. See 
Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 138-146 ; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. 
Bpovryn. For legends see D.B.*i. p. 1511; Lipsius, iii. pp. 201-228, 
i. pp. 348-542. 

¢ihurmov. All that we know of Him comes from Jn. (i. 44-49, 
vi. 5-7, xii. 21, 22, xiv. 8,9). There seems to have been some 
connexion between him and Andrew (Jn. i. 44, xii. 22); and both 
in Mk. iii. 18 and Acts i. 13 their names are placed together in the 
lists; but the nature of the connexion is unknown. §Lipsius, 
ill. pp. I-53. 

BapPodopatov. The ancient and common identification with 
Nathanael is probable, but by no means certain. 1. As Bar-tholomew 
is only a patronymic, “son of Talmai,” the bearer of it would be 
likely to have another name. 2. The Synoptists do not mention 
Nathanael ; Jn. does not mention Bartholomew. 3. The Synoptists 
place Bartholomew next to Philip, and Philip brought Nathanael to 
Christ. 4. The companions of Nathanael who are named Jn. xxi. 2 
are all of them Apostles. Lipsius, iii. pp. 54-108. 

15. MaO@atov kat Owpav. In all three these names are com- 
bined ; but Mt. reverses the order, and after his own name adds 
6 teAdvys, which is found in none of the other lists. All that we 
know of Thomas is told us by Jn. (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24-29, xxi. 2). 
Lipsius, ili. pp. 109-141, 1. pp. 225-347. 

*IdkwBov “AXpaiou. His father is probably not the father of Levi 
(Mk. ii. 14), and James himself is certainly not the brother of the 
Lord (Mt. xiii. 55 ; Mk. vi. 3; Gal. i. 19) who was the first over- 
seer of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13; Gal. ii. 9, 12° 


174 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 15, 16. 


The brethren of the Lord did not believe on Him at this time 
(Jn. vii. 5), and none of them can have been among the Twelve. 
But the Apostle James the son of Alpheus is probably identical 
with James the Little (Mt. xxvii. 56; Mk. xv. 40; Jn. xix. 25), for 
Alphzus and Clopas may be two different Greek forms of the 
Aramaic Chalpai; but this is uncertain. See Mayor, Z/. of 
S. James, pp. i-xlvi; also Exfositors Bible, S. James and S. Jude, 
pp. 25-30 (Hodder, 1891). Inall the catalogues James of Alphzeus 
heads the third group of Apostles. Lipsius, ili. 229-238. 

Tov Kadoupevov Lydwmy.! Lk. has this in both his lists, while 
Mt. and Mk. have 6 Kavavatos, which in sédme authorities has 
been corrupted into Kavavirys. Neither of these forms can mean 
“Canaanite,” for which the Greek is Kavavaios (Mt. xv. 22 and 
LXX), nor yet “of Cana,” for which the Greek would be Kavaios. 
Kavavaios is the Aramaic Kazan in a Greek form (on the analogy 
of Papicaios from Pharish and *Acowdatos from Chasid) and = 
fnrwrys. Lipsius, iii. pp. 142-200. See on i. 36. 


Rhem. leaves the word untranslated, Cananzus, and Wic. makes it unintel- 
ligible, ‘‘Canane.” All the other English Versions make it a local adj., ‘‘ of 
Cana,” or “‘ of Cane,” or ‘Sof Canan,” or ‘‘of Canaan,” or ‘‘ the Canaanite.” 
The last error seems to begin with Cranmer in 1539. RV. is the first-to make 
clear that ‘‘ Kananzean” means ‘‘ Zealot.” Lft. On Reviston, pp. 138, 139 
(154, 155, 2nd ed.) ; Fritzsche on Mt. x. 4. The Zealots date from the time of 
the Maccabees as a class who attempted to force upon others their own rigorous 
interpretations of the Law. S. Paul speaks of himself as wepiooorépws (mdwrijs 
birdpxwy Tov TaTpiKGv pou mapadécewv (Gal. i. 14), 2.¢ he belonged to the 
extreme party of the Pharisees (Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 7, xxvi. 5; Phil. ii. 5, 6). 
Large numbers of this party were among the first converts at Jerusalem (Acts 
xxi. 20). From these extremists had sprung the revolt under Judas of Galilee 
(Acts. v. 37; Jos. Azz, xviii. I. I, 6), and the Szcarzz, who were the proximate 
cause of the destruction of Jerusalem (Jos. 2. J. iv. 3. 9, 5. I, 7. 2, vil. 8. I, 
10. I, 11. 1). Milman, Aést. of the Jews, ii. pp. 191, 291, 299, 323, 4th ed. 
1866; Ewald, Hzst. of Israel, vii. 559 ff., Eng. tr.; Herzog, PREZ.? art. 
‘«Zeloten.” Whether the Apostle Simon was called {mAwryjs because he had 
once belonged to this party, or because of his personal character either before or 
after his call, must remain uncertain, 


16. *lovSav *laxéBov. That there were two Apostles of the 
name of Judas is clear from Jn. xiv. 22, although Mt. and Mk. 
mention only one; and the identification of their Thaddzeus with 
the Judas not Iscariot of Jn. and with this Judas of James makes 
all run smoothly. “Iovdas “Iaxwfov must be rendered “ Judas the 
son of James,” not “ the dzother of James,” for which there is no 
justification. When Lk. means “brother” he inserts ddeXdds 
(iii. 1, vi. 14 Acts xii. 2). Nonnus in his Paraphrase (MeraBodn) 
of Jn. xiv. 22 has ‘Iovdas vids "IaxwBouo, “Iovdas adeAdds "lax Bou 
(Jude 1) is quite a different person, viz. the brother of James the 


1 This use of kaXovpmevos is very common in Lk, (vii. 11, viii. 2, ix. 10, x. 
39, xxi. 37, xxii. 3, xxiii. 33), and still more so in Acts. Not in Mt. Mk. or Jn. 


VI. 16, 17.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 175 


Lord’s brother. Tyn. Cov. and Cran. rightly supply “sonne” 
here, and Luth. also has sow. The error begins with Beza’s 
Jratrem, Of this James, the father of Judas Thaddeus, nothing 
is known. Lk. adds the name of the father, because his arrange- 
ment places this Judas next to the traitor. 

‘loxapid9. This epithet probably means “man of Kerioth,” 
which was a place in Judah (Josh. xv. 25), or possibly in Moab 
(Jer. xlviii. 24). Jn. vi. 71 confirms this; for there and Jn. 
xill. 26 the true reading gives “Judas son of Simon Iscariot” ; 
and if the name is a local epithet, both father and son would be 
likely to have it. Im this case Judas was the only Apostle who 
was rot a Galilean, and this may have helped to isolate him. 
Other derivations of “Iscariot,” which connect the word with 
“lying,” or “strangling,” or “apron,” ze. bag, or “ date-trees ” 
(kapwwrides), are much less probable. We know nothing about 
Simon Iscariot. Farrar identifies him with Simon Zelotes, which 
is most improbable. Simon was one of the commonest of names. 
The MSS. vary between “Ioxapiw6, which is right here, and Ioxapu- 
tns, which is right xxii. 3. Here only is mpodétys used of Judas: 
it occurs in the plur. Acts vii. 52; 2 Tim. iii. 4; and in the sing. 
2 Mac. v. 15, x. 13. All English Versions go wrong about éyéverto 
mpoddtns. Nowhere in Scripture is Judas styled “ ze traitor,” and 
éyévero should be distinguished from jv: therefore, not “was the 
traitor,” but “‘decame a traitor,” as the American Revisers pro- 
posed. Judas “turned traitor.” The difficulty about the call of 
Judas is parallel to the powers bestowed upon a Napoleon. The 
treason of Judas shows that no position in the Church, however 
exalted, gives security against the most complete fall. 


The verb used of the treachery of Judas is never oda but sapade- 
Odvac (xxii. 4, 6, 21, 22, 48; Mt. x. 4; Mk. iii. 19; Jn. vi. 64, 71). In 
class. Grk. mpodrdbvae commonly has this meaning; aapadcddvac rarely. 
Here the Lat. texts vary between Zrvodztor (Vulg.) and ¢radztor (c f ff, r) and 
qui tradidit eum or tllum (d e). 


17-19. The Descent from the Mountain, and many Miracles 
of Healing. The parallel passages in Mk. iii. 7-12 and Mt. iv. 24, 
25 are very different from Lk. and from one another in wording. 

17. émt té7ov medwod. This way mean a level spot below the 
summit; but in connexion with xaraBds, and without qualification, 
it more naturally means level ground near the foot of the mountain. 
Hither it would be more likely that multitudes would come and 
bring their sick, than to a plateau high up the mountain. 


The Latin texts vary: 1% loco campestri (Vulg.), in loco campense (a), in I. 
plano (f) in J. pedeplano (1.). 


koi OvAcy WOAUS pulyvov word, Not a nom. pendens, bat 


176 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 17-19. 


included in the preceding éory: comp. the constr. viii, 1-3. He 
stood, and they stood. But the éo7ry is no evidence as to Christ’s 
attitude during the discourse, because the healings intervene: 
iv. 20 shows that Lk. is aware of Christ’s sitting to preach. 

kat 790s Todd Tod Aaod, k.7.A. This is a third group. Christ 
and the Twelve form one group. The multitude of disciples in 
the wider sense form a second. And besides these there is a 
mixed throng from Judza and the sea-coast : see on xi. 29. 


laOfjvat aad. The prep. is not classical ; but we say “‘to be cured from” 
(Mk. v. 29). In the perf., 1 aor. and 1 fut. pass. the dep. idowat is pass. in 
meaning (vii. 7, vill. 47, xvii. 15; Acts iii. 11). Except in Lk., the verb is 
rare in N.T. writers.—There should be at least a colon at trav vécwv airav : 
here the long sentence which began at ver. 13 ends. 


18, 19. For similarly condensed accounts of groups of miracles 
comp. iv. 40, V. 15, vii. 21. We once more have an amphibolous 
expression: see on li. 22. Here amd mveupdtov dxaQdptwv may be 
taken either with évoxAovmevor or with eOcparevovro. From ver. 17 
and vii. 21 we infer that the latter constr. is right: “They that 
were troubled with them were healed of unclean spirits.” But in 
the other cases the gen. with dé follows the verb; so that 
évoxAovpevor ard may be right. The “and” before “ were healed” 
in AV. is from a corrupt reading: not only Wic. and Rhem. with 
Vulg., but also Cov., omit the “and.” For mveupdtav dxatdptav 
see on iv. 33. Note ras and wdvras here and zdo7ns in ver. 17. 
They are not found in Mk. iii. 7, ro: see on ver. 30. With map 
attod é&jpxeto comp. Jn. xvi. 27. Lk. commonly writes ef€pyo- 
pat aad: see small print on iv. 35, and comp. vili. 46, which 
illustrates darecOat, Svvopus, and é&ypxero. For Stvapis and idto 
see on iv. 36. 

20-49. The Sermon ézi tézov zedivod. 


To call it *‘ the Sermon on the Plain,” following the AV. in ver. 17, is con- 
venient, but scarcely justifiable. ‘‘The plain” has not been mentioned, and 
70 medlov does not occur in N.T. Moreover, it is by no means certain that this 
téros meduvés was at the foot of the mount. And to talk of ‘‘ the Sermon on 
the Plain” assumes, what cannot be proved, that the discourse here recorded is 
entirely distinct from ‘‘the Sermon on the Mount” (Mt. v. I-vii. 29). The 
relations between the two discourses will never cease to be discussed, because 
the materials are insufficient for a final decision. The following are the chicf 
hypotheses which have been suggested in order to explain the marked similari- 
ties and differences. 1. They are reports, at first or second hand, of tw 
similar but different discourses, distinct in time, place, and circumstance (Auger, 
Greswell, Osiander, Patritius, Plumptre, Sadler ; so also in the main Barradius, 
Basil, Doddridge, Toletus, Tostatus). 2. They are reports of two different 
discourses delivered on the same day, Mt. giving the esoteric address to the 
disciples on the mountain, Lk. the exoteric address to the mixed multitude 
below (Augustine, Lange). 3. They are recensions, with interpolations and 
omissions, of two independent reports of one and the same sermon (Schleier- 
macher). 4. They are recensions of the same report, to which Mt. adds 


VI. 20-49.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 177 


material from other sources, and from which Lk. perhaps omits portions (B. 
Weiss). 5. Mt. gives a conflate arrangement of sayings which were uttered on 
various occasions, and some of these occasions are given by Lk. (Bleek, Calvin, 
Godet, Holtzmann, Keim, Kuinoel, Neander, Pott, Semler, Weizsacker, 
Wieseler). 6. Both sermons are a conglomeration of detached sayings collected 
into an anthology of aphorisms (Strauss, and to some extent Baur). Besides 
the writers mentioned above under the last four heads, a multitude of commen- 
tators adopt the view that the main portions of the reports given by Mt. and Lk, 
represent one and the same discourse (Bengel, Bucer, Calovius, Caspari, 
Chemnitz, Chrysostom, De Wette, Ebrard, Edersheim, Ellicott, Ewald, Farrar, 
Fritzsche, Grotius, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Lewin, Luther, McClellan, Meyer, 
Milman, Olshausen, Oosterzee, Origen, Robinson, Schanz, Schneckenburger, 
Sieffert, Stroud, Tholuck, Tischendorf, Wordsworth). 

Bad or inadequate arguments are used on both sides. It is a great deal too 
much to say with Schleiermacher that the fact that the portions common to both 
appear in the same order, with the same beginning and end, “‘ proves zncontro- 
vertibly the identity of the discourse.” Any preacher repeating a carefully 
prepared sermon would begin and end in the same way, and would put 
his points in the same order. And it is mere dogmatism without argument ~ 
when Sadler asserts that ‘‘the Lord wzzss¢ have pronounced each [beatitude] 
which St. Matthew records, and yet it is equally plain that He cou/d hardly 
have pronounced them according to St. Luke’s form. He would not have 
said, Blessed are ye meek ones, Blessed are ye merciful ones, Blessed are 
ye peacemakers. The four given by St. Luke are the only ones which coudd 
well have been pronounced personally on the disciples ; so that the beatitudes 
as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke respectively, cow/d not have been altered 
forms of the same discourse.” Much more reasonable is the position of Grotius, 
who believes that both record the same sermon: szcut factt narrationes circum- 
stantiis congruentes non temere ad res diversas referendex sunt, ita sermones nihil 
vetat sepius habitos cosdem aut similes, presertim continentes vite totius pre- 
cepta, que non potuerunt nimium sepe repett (on Lk. vi. 17). We know 
beyond all question that some of our Lord’s words were uttered several times, 
and there is nothing antecedently improbable in the hypothesis that the words 
of this discourse, gua non potuerunt nimium sepe repete, were delivered in one 
or other of these forms more than once. Nor does it follow that those portions 
which Lk. gives as having been uttered on other occasions were not also uttered 
as parts of a continuous discourse. A preacher naturally repeats fragments of 
his own sermons in giving catechetical instruction, and also gathers up detached 
items of instruction when composing a sermon. The fact that Lk. meant to 
record these other occasions may have been part of his reason for omitting the 
similar words in this discourse. Another consideration which may have deter- 
mined his selection is the thought of what would best suit Gentile readers. But 
in any case the dictum of Grotius must be remembered, that the hypothesis of 
a repetition of verbally similar sayings may be used with much more freedom 
than the hypothesis of a repetition of circumstantially similar acts. 

The conclusion arrived at by Sanday and P. Ewald is of this kind. The 
beatitudes originally stood in the Zogza in a form similar to that in Mt. v. 3-12. 
Lk. used the Zogza, but had also a document entirely independent of the Zagza ; 
and this contained a discourse, spoken originally on some other occasion, but 
yet so like the Sermon on the Mount as to be identified with it by Lk. The 
sermon in Luke is, therefore, a compound of the reports of two similar but 
different discourses ; and in this compound the elements derived from the Zogza 
are dominated by those derived from the independent document (Zxfosztor for 
April 1891, p. 315). It seems, however, simpler to suppose that Lk. took the 
whole of his report from the document which contained this very similar, but 
different sermon. See Paul Feine, Ueber das gegenseit. Verhdltniss d. Texte der 
Bergpredigt bez Matthdus und Lukas in the Jahrb. fiir Protest. Theologze, xi. 1. 

12 


178 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE  [VI. 20-49, 
The following tables will show the parallels between the two Evangelists :— 


BETWEEN THE Two SERMONS, 


Lk, vi. 20, 21, » Mtv.3,.4,6. -Lic vi3768i, o Me iwitox,f2: 
22523. rein, 1 415:420) ae 3-5. 
27-30. : 39-42. 43-46 . - 16-21. 

Shia. vii. 12. 47-49. 


24-27. 


BETWEEN DETACHED SAYINGS IN LK. AND THB 
SERMON IN MT, 


Lk. xiv. 34, 35 . Mt v.13. Lk. xi. 34-36. . Mt. vi, 22-23. 
viii. 16 and xi, 33. . XVI Sie . 24. 
Xvi. 17 » ° I xii, 22-31 . . 25-34. 
xii, 58,59. 6 25, 26. xi, 9-135 vii, 7-11. 
XV1. 15 « e 32. xi. 24 . . 13. 
xi, 2-4. 800 vi, 9-13. 25-27 . . 22, 23. 

mi. 33,342 19, 21. 


BETWEEN THE SERMON IN LK. AND DETACHED 
SAYINGS IN MT. 


Lk, vi. 39 6 s Mt, xv. 14. Lk. vi. 40 e e Mt. x. 24. 


This last saying was frequently uttered. It is recorded twice by Jn. (xiii. 16, 
xv. 20), and the four records seem to refer to four different occasions ; besides 
which we have a similar utterance Lk. xxii. 27. 

These tables leave three verses of the sermon in Lk. without a parallel in 
Mt. (or any other Gospel), viz. the four woes corresponding to the four beati- 
tudes, vv. 24-26. The portions of the sermon in Mt. which have no parallel in 
Lk. amount to forty-one verses, viz. Mt. v. 5, 7-10, 14, 16, 17, 19-24, 27-31, 
33-38, 43, vi. 1-8, 14-18, vii. 6, 14, 15. 

The plan of both discourses is the same. 1. The qualifications of those who 
can enter the kingdom (Lk. 20-26; Mt. v. 1-12); 2. The duties of those who 
have entered the kingdom (Lk. 27-45; Mt. v. 13-vii. 12); 3. The judgments 
which await the members of the kingdom (Lk. 46-49; Mt. vii. 13-27). En- 
couragement, requirement, warning ; or invitation, principles, sanction ;—these 
are the three gradations which may be traced in these discourses ; and, as Stier 
remarks, the course of all preaching is herein reflected. 

‘There is considerable unanimity as to the spot where the sermon was 
delivered (Stanley, Sz & Pal. pp. 368, 369; Caspari, Chron. and Geograph. 
Int, to the L. of C. § 108, p. 171; Robinson, Pal. ii. 370, iii. pp. 241, 4853 
Farrar, Z. of C. i. p. 250, and on Lk, vi. 12; Keim, /es. of az. ii. p. 280). 
On the other hand, Edersheim asserts that ‘‘ the locality is for many reasons 
unsuitable”; but he gives no reasons (Z. & 7. i. p. 5243; see also Thomson, 
Land and Book, ii. p. 118). 


20-26. The Qualifications necessary for Admission to the 
Kingdom: the Happiness of those who possess them (20-23), and 
the Misery of those who possess them not (24-26). This contrast 
of Blessings and Woes at the beginning of the sermon corresponds 
with the contrast in the parable with which it ends. 


VI. 20.] 


THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 


179 


THE BEATITUDES COMMON TO MT. AND LK. WITH THE CORRESPONDING 


Makdpros 


1. of rrwxol 7H rveb- 
part, ort avrav cor 7 
Bacirela Tov otpavar. 

2. ol mevOodvres, Sre 
atrol Tapak\nOjoovrat. © 

4. ob mewavres Kal dup- 
Gyres Thy Sixarocvyny, bre 
avrol xopracOyjcovTat. 

8. éore bray dvetdlowow 
tuds Kal didtwow Kal 
elmwow mav Tovnpoy Kab’ 
tpav wevddpevor Evexev 
émov" 

xalpere kal dyadNaobe, 
Sri 6 pucOds buav odds 
év Tots ovpavots: otrws yap 
edlwkav ods mpodijras 
rods mpd Duar. 


Woks IN LK, 


Maxdpros 


I. of mrwxol, bre dbue- 
tépa dor % Baotdela Tob 
Oecd. 

3. of kAalovres viv, Ore 
yehdoere. 

2. of mewavres viv, ort 
XopracOjcecbe. 


4. éore Bray puojowow 
buds ol dvOpwirot, kal brap 
dgoplowow buds Kal dveu- 
dlowow Kar exBadwow 7d 
bvoua nav ws Trovnpov 
Evexa Tod vlod rod dvOpiw- 
mou: xdpyre év éxelvy TH 
mwepe Kat TKLPTHTATE, dod 
"yap o pac Bos bpay TONDS 
éy T@ ovpavg@ kata Ta 
atra yap érolovy Tots mpo- 
giyrats ol marépes avraov. 


Odal 


I. buty rots rrovalas, 
Bru dawéyere Thy mapd- 
KAjow dpov. 

3. ol yeh@vres viv, Sri 
mevOnoere kal KAavoere. 

2. vpiv, ol éumemAno- 
pévot viv, Ort mewdeoere. 


4. Bray Kaas dpas et- 
mwow waves ol dvOpwirot, 
kaTa Ta ara yap éxolou 
Tois wWevdompogiyras ol 
matépes alrav. 


VI. 20-23. Four Beatitudes; which correspond to the first, 
second, fourth, and eighth in Mt. v. 3-12; those relating to the 
meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers being 
omitted. In the four that Lk. gives the more spiritual words which 
occur in Mt. are omitted, and the blessings are assigned to more 
external conditions. Actual poverty, sorrow, and hunger are 
declared to be blessed (as being opportunities for the exercise of 
internal virtues); and this doctrine is emphasized by the corre- 
sponding Woes pronounced upon wealth, jollity, and fulness of 
bread (as being sources of temptation). It is in the last Beatitude 
that there is least difference between the two. Even in Lk. 
unpopularity is not declared to be blessed, unless it is “for the 
Son of Man’s sake”; and there is no Woe pronounced upon 
popularity for the Son of Man’s sake. 

20. Kat adtés émdpas tods dpbahpods attod eis tols padnrds. 
Lk.’s favourite mode of connexion in narrative : see on v. 14 and 
comp. viii. 1, 22, ix. 51, etc. With émdpas 7. 69. comp. xviii. 13 
and Jn. xvii. 1. We must not take «is with <Aeyev; Lk. would 
have written zpds, and after eye: contrast adi, 65 and Mk. 
iil. 29. Mt. has tpoojAGav aire ot pabyraiavrod, Kal... edidacKey 
aitovs. The discourse in doth cases is addressed to the disciples ; 
there is nothing to indicate that the discourse zz Z&. is addressed 
to mixed multitudes, including unbelieving Jews and heathen, 
These Beatitudes would not be true, if addressed to them. It is to 
the faithful Christian that poverty, hunger, sorrow, and unpopularity 


180 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 20, 21. 


are real blessings; to others they may be mere sterile suffering. 
Whereas, even for the heathen, to be poor zz spzrz¢ and to hunger 
and thirst after righteousness are blessed things. In Mt. the 
Beatitudes are in the third person and have a wider sweep. 


paxdptot ot. This is the common constr. both in LXX and N.T., the 
reason for the blessedness being expressed by a noun or participle which is the 
subject of the sentence (Ps. ii. 12, xl. 5, xli. 2, Ixxxiv. 5, 6, 13, Ixxxix. 16, 
etc.); but the reason is sometimes expressed by the relative with a finite verb 
(Ps. i, I, xxxii. I, 2; Lk. xiv. 153 Jas. i. 12), or by Gre (xiv. 14; 1 Pet. 
iv. 14), or by édv (Jn. xiii, 17; 1 Cor. vii. 40). 


oi mrwxot. See on iv. 18. We have no right to supply 7@ 
mvevuatt from Mt. It is actual poverty that is here meant. Nor 
is it the meaning that actual poverty makes men “poor in spirit.” 
Still less does it mean that in itself poverty is to all men a blessing. 
There is no Ebionite doctrine here. But “to you, My disciples, 
poverty is a blessing, because it preserves you in your dependence 
on God, and helps you to be truly His subjects”: 76 yap twerépa 
deuxtix@s pds wapovtas éAéyero (Eus.) Some of these disciples had 
made themselves poor by surrendering all in order to follow Christ. 
Gomp: "Ps. lxodi. 12, 33. 

Spetépa éotiv 4 Baoidtela. ‘Yours zs the kingdom,” not “ will 
be.” It is not a promise, as in the next Beatitudes, but the state- 
ment of a fact. But the Kingdom is not yet theirs in its fulness ; 
and those elements which are not yet possessed are promised in 
the Beatitudes which follow. 

21. of mewdvtes viv. “Those of you who are suffering from 
actual want in this life. Ye shall have compensation.” 

exoptacOncecGe. Originally the verb was confined to supplying 
animals with fodder (xépros), and if used of men implied a brutish 
kind of feeding (Plato, Ref. ix. p. 586). But in N.T. it is never 
used of cattle, and when it is used of men it has no degrading asso- 
ciations (ix. 17; Jn. vi. 26; Phil. iv. 12; Jas. ii, 16); not even 
xv. 16, if the word is genuine there, nor xvi. 21. Comp. tovs 
mTTwXovs adits xoptdow aptwy (Ps. cxxxii. 15). In LXX xoprdlo 
and ziuaAnpu are used to translate the same Hebrew word, some- 
times in the same verse: dru éydpracey Wuxnv Kevyv, Kat Woxyv 
mewooav évérdyncev ayabdv (Ps. cvii. 9). Here the filling refers to 
the spiritual abundance in the Kingdom of God. Jn all four cases, 
although the suffering endured is external and literal, yet the com- 
pensating blessing is spiritual. 

ot KkAatovtes viv. Mt. has zevOotvres, which expresses the 
mourning, while «Aaiovres implies outward manifestation of grief in 
loud weeping, just as yeAdoere implied outward expression of mirth 
in laughter. Though common in LXX, yeAdo occurs in N.T, only 
here and ver. 20, 


VI. 22, 23.] | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 181 


22. ddopicwow Spas. ‘ Mark you off from (dé) by a boundary 
(Gpos).” It is used both in a good sense (Acts xiii. 2; Rom. i. 1; 
Gal. i. 15) and also in a bad, as here. Comp. xai p’ ard yas dpice 
(Eur. Hee. 940). Excommunication from the congregation as well 
as from social intercourse is here meant. The usual sentence was 
for thirty days, during which the excommunicated might not come 
within four cubits of any one. Comp. Jn. ix. 22, xii. 42, xvi. 2. 
Whether there was at this time a more severe form of excommunica- 
tion is uncertain. Herzog, PREZ.? art. Bann bei den Hebriern ; 
Grotius on Lk. vi. 22; Lightfoot, Hor. Hed. on Jn. ix. 22. 


éveiSicowo.v. The object to be supplied may be either the preceding 
buds (so most English Versions) or the following 76 dvoua duady (Bede, Weiss). 
Vulg. supplies nothing ; and Tyn. and Gen. have simply ‘‘and rayle” with- 
out an object. Neither AV. nor RV. has ‘you ” in italics. 


éxBddwow 7d dvoua Spay as tovnpéy. ‘Throw your name con- 
temptuously away, reject it with ignominy, as an evil thing.” 
There is no idea of striking a name off the list as a mark of dis- 
grace, ex albo expungere, a meaning which é«@dAXew never has. 
It is used of hissing an actor off the stage and otherwise dismissing 
with contempt (Aristoph. Z£g. 525; WVud. 1477; Soph. O. C. 631, 
636; O. Z. 849; Plato, C7zto, 46 B). ‘Your name” means “the 
name by which you are known as My disciples,” as Christians. 
“‘ Christian” or ‘“‘ Nazarene” was a name of bad repute, which it 
was disgraceful, and even unlawful, to bear, for Christianity was 
not a veligio licita. For wovnpov as an epithet of évoua comp. Deut. 
Xxll. 19. 

évexa Tod uiod Tod dvOpdmov. A vital qualification. The hatred 
and contempt must be undeserved, and be endured for Christ’s 
sake ; not merited by one’s own misconduct. 

28. oxipmoate. Peculiar to Lk. See on i. 41 and comp. 
Mal. iv. 2. 

kata TA adTa yap émoiouv Tois mpopytats. This implies that they 
are to receive “‘a prophet’s reward” (Mt. x. 41), as in this world, so 
in the next. 


For the dat. comp. trois pucotcw dpas (ver. 27). In class. Gk. we should 
have had 1a atta érolouv rods rpod. Thus, éya dé raira Toiroy érolnca adv 
dixy (Hadt. i. 115. 3, iv. 166. 3: comp. Aristoph. Wud. 259; Vesp. 697). In 
later Gk, the dat. of relation becomes much more common, 


oi watépes attay. The gen. refers to of dv@pwro in ver. 22; 
“the father of them” whe hate and abuse you. 

24-26. Four Woes corresponding to the four Beatitudes 
There is no evidence that these were not part of the original dis- 
course. Assuming that Mt. and Lk. report the same discourse, 
Mt. may have omitted them. But they may have been spoken on 
some other occasion. Schleiermacher and Weiss would have it 


182 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |VL 24, 25. 


that they are mere glosses added by Lk. to emphasize and explain 
the preceding blessings. Cheyne thinks that some of them were 
suggested to Lk. by Is. lxv. 13-16. We have no right to assume 
that no persons were present to whom these words would be 
applicable. Even if there were none present, yet these Woes 
might have been uttered as warnings both to those who heard 
them and to others who would learn them from those who heard. 
Just as the Beatitudes express the qualifications of those who are 
to enter the Kingdom, so these show the qualities which exclude 
men from it. It is possible that some of the spies and adversaries 
from Judzea were among the audience, and thus Jesus warns them 
of their condition. When the discourse as placed by Mt. was 
spoken there was less opposition to Christ, and hence no Woes 
(Pastor Pastorum, p. 256). 


24, whyv. Curtius makes rAjv an adverbial form of méov, so that its 
radical meaning would be ‘‘ more than, beyond” (Gr. Ztym. 282); but Lft. 
(Phil. iii. 16) connects it with zéAas, in the meaning “‘ besides, apart from 
this, only.” For the accusatival form comp. dlxnv, éxlkdny, clam, coram. It 
sometimes restricts, sometimes expands, what precedes. It is a favourite 
word with Lk., in the Gospel as an adv. (ver. 35, x. II, 14, 20, xi. 41, xii. 31, 
xili. 33, xvii. I, xviii. 8, xix. 27, xxii. 21, 22, 42, xxiii. 28), in the Acts as a 
prep. (viii. I, xv. 28, xxvii. 22). ‘* But” “is the only possible rendering here. 


ovat butv tots mAovotors. As a matter of fact the opponents of 
Christ came mostly from the wealthy classes, like the oppressors of 
the first Christians (Jas. v. 1-6). See Renan, L’Antechrist, p. xii; 
Ewald, Hist. of [srael, ii. p. 451. But the cases of Nicodemus and 
Joseph of Arimathea show that the rich as such were not excluded 
from the kingdom.—éméxete. ‘Ye have to the full”; so that 
there is nothing more left to have. The poor consolation derived 
from the riches in which they trusted is all that they get: they 
have no treasure in heaven. Comp. Mt. vi. 2, 5, 16; Philem. 15 ; 
and see Lft. on Phil. iv. 18. This meaning is classical: comp. 
drodapBavw, drepyafopat, For wapdk\now see on ii. 25, and comp. 
xvi. 25 of Lazarus. 

25. of éumemAnopévor viv. “Sated with the good things of this 
life, ” like Dives (Ezek. xvi. 49). Grotius compares the epitaph, 
téao éxw Goo émiov Kat édyrva. It may be doubted whether the 
change of word from xopralecOa (ver. 21) indicates that horum 
plenitudo non meretur nomen satietatis (Beng.): comp. 1. 53. In 
Lat. Vet. and Vulg. we have saturor both here and ver. 21. 

mewdoete, This received a partial and literal fulfilment when 
Jerusalem was reduced to starvation in the siege: but the reference 
is rather to the loss of the spiritual food of the Kingdom. Comp. 
Is. lxv. 13. Hillel said, ‘“‘The more flesh one hath the more 
worms, the more treasures the more care, the more maids the more 
unchastity, the more men-servants the more theft. The more law 


VI. 25-27.) THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 183 


the more life, the more schools the more wisdom, the more counsel 
the more insight, the more righteousness the more peace.” 

ot yeAGvtes viv. “Who laugh for joy over your present pro- 
sperity,” the loss of which will surely come and cause grief. But 
the worst loss will be that of spiritual joy hereafter (Is. Ixv. 14). 

26. Stay kahds einwow Spas. It is the wealthy who are com- 
monly admired and praised by all who hope to win their favour. 
The praise of worldly men is no guarantee of merit: rather it shows 
that those who have won it do not rise above the world’s standard 
(Jn. xv. 19; Jas. iv. 4). Plutarch says that Phocion, when his 
speech was received with universal applause, asked his friends 
whether he had inadvertently said anything wrong. 

ois eudoTpopytats. Just as the persecuted disciples are the 
representatives of the true Prophets, so the wealthy hierarchy 
whom all men flatter are the representatives of the false (Jer. 
Vv. 31; comp. xxiii. 17; Is. xxx. 10; Mic. ii. 11). 

Having stated who can and who cannot enter the Kingdom, 
Jesus goes on to make known the principles which regulate the 
Kingdom. 

27-45. Requirement: the Duties to be performed by those 
who are admitted to the Kingdom of God. This forms the main 
body of the discourse. Lk. omits the greater portion of what is 
reported in Mt. respecting Christ’s relation to the Mosaic Law 
(v. 17-19), and His condemnation of existing methods of interpret- 
ing it (v. 20-48) and of fulfilling it (vi. 1-18). This discussion of 
Judaic principles and - practices would not have much meaning for 
Lk.’s Gentile readers. The portion of it which he gives is stated 
without reference to Judaism. The main point in Mt. is the 
contrast between legal righteousness and true righteousness. In 
Lk. the main point is that true righteousness is love; but the 
opposition between formalism and the spirit of love is not urged. 
The opposition which is here marked is the more universal 
opposition between the spirit of selfishness and the spirit of love. 
There is a break in this main portion, which Lk. marks by making 
a fresh start, Eirey 8¢ xal zapaB8odjv atrois, but the second half 
(39-45) continues the subject of the working of the principie of 
love. 


27. *A\Ad. What is the contrast which this dAAd marks? The 
emphatic position of the tuiv seems to show that the contrast is 
between those on whom the Woes have been pronounced and the 
faithful hearers now addressed. Others interpret, “ But, although 


184 | THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VL 27, 28. 


I have denounced them, I do not allow you to hate them: you 
must love them.” There is, however, no indication that the 
enemies who are to be loved are the wealthy who have just been 
denounced, and such a limitation of the meaning of enemies 
cannot be justified: comp. Mt. v. 44. 

tots dkovoucw. ‘Who give ear and obey,” tots zevfomevois 
(Euthym.). It is unnatural to take it literally as meaning “ My 
audience,” in contrast to the rich who have just been addressed zw 
their absence. Representatives of the rich may have been present 
among the audience. Schanz interprets “who listen with attention.” 


There is on the whole a double climax in what follows,—the worse the 
treatment received, the better the return made; but it is not quite exact. One 
would expect that dyamare would be coupled with tos pucofvras. This is the 
first time that Lk. uses the word dyamgv, which sums up the whole spirit of the 
Gospel: it is most frequent in the writings of Jn. ‘‘It should never be 
forgotten that dydz7y is a word born within the bosom of revealed religion: it 
occurs in the Septuagint ; but there is no example of its use in any heathen 
writer whatever” (Trench, Syz. xii.). This is not true of dyamgy and dyamd- 
few, which are common in class. Grk. But Christianity has ennobled the 
meaning of both dyamgv and guAeiv, with their cognates : épgv, which is scarcely 
capable of such advancement, does not occur in N.T. See on xi. 42, the only 
place where dyd2ry occurs in Lk. 


tovs éx@povs. For the combination with rots pucodow comp. 
i. 71; Ps. xviii. 18, cvi. 10; and for the fourfold description of 
enmity comp. ver. 22. In Mt. v. 44 we have only enemies and 
persecutors according to the best texts; and as xaAds zrotetre Tovs 
pwc. twas (note the acc.) is not genuine there, this is the only 
passage in which xadds rovetyv= “benefit, do good Zo”: comp. 
Kadds eizeiy (ver. 26), and contrast Mt. xii. 12; Mk. vii. 37; Acts 
%. 33; 1 Cor. vil. 37, 38; Phil. iv. 143 Jas. ii. G)eeeeaee 
i. 19; 3 Jn. 6.—1tois picodow. For the dat. comp. tots tpopyrats 
(ver. 23) and rots Wevdorpodyrais (ver. 26). See the expansion of 
this principle Rom. xii. 17-21; 1 Thes. v. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 9. 
Comp. Exod. xxiii. 4; Job xxxi. 29; Prov. xvii. 5, xxiv. 17, 
xxv. 21. See detached note on she relation of Rom. xii.-xiv. to the 
Gospels at the end of Rom. xiii. 

28. eddoyeite Tots Katapwpevous Suds. In class. Grk. edAoyetv 
means “praise, honour,” whether gods or men: comp. i. 64, ii. 28 ; 
Jas. iii. 9. The meaning “invoke blessings upon” is confined to 
LXX and N.T. (Gen. xiv. 19, xxii. 17, xlviii.g; Rom. xii. 14; 
Acts iii. 26). 


In class, Grk, xarapac@at is followed by a dat. (Hom. Hdt. Xen. Dem.)- 
as in Ep. Jer. 65: but in N.T. by an acc. (Mk. ix. 21; Jas. iii. 9); and the 
interpolation Mt. v. 44.—For mpocetxec0e mepl we might have expected mp. 
barép, and the MSS. here and elsewhere are divided between vép and mepl 
(Gal. i. 4; Col. i. 3; Rom. i. 8). But comp. Acts viii, 15; Heb, xiii. 18; 
Col. iv. 3. Win. xlvii. 1. 2, p. 478 


VI. 28-30.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 185 


tov émnpealdvtay Spas. Aristotle defines érypeacpes as éyuzro- 
diapos tais Bovryceow, ody iva te abTG, GAN tva pH exeivw (Rhet. 
ii, 2. 3). It is “spiteful treatment.” 


29, 30. Whereas vv. 27, 28 refer to the active dydan which returns good 
for evil, these refer rather to the passive waxpoOuula, which never retaliates. 
The four precepts here given are startling. - It is impossible for either govern- 
ments or individuals to keep them. A State which endeavoured to shape its 
policy in exact accordance with them would soon cease to exist; and if 
individuals acted in strict obedience to them society would be reduced to 
anarchy. Violence, robbery, and shameless exaction would be supreme. The 
inference is that they are not precepts, but illustrations of principles. They are 
in the form of rules; but as they cazzot be kept as rules, we are compelled to 
look beyond the letter to the spirit which they embody. If Christ had given 
precepts which could be kept literally, we might easily have rested content with 
observing the letter, and have never penetrated to the spirit. What is the spirit? 
Among other things this :—that resistance of evil and refusal to part with our 
property must never be a Zersonal matter: so far as we are concerned we must 
be willing to suffer still more and to surrender still more. It is right to with- 
stand and cven to punish those who injure us: but in order to correct them and 
protect society ; not because of any personal anzmus. It is right also to with- 
ho'd o7r possessions from those who without good reason ask for them; but in 
or@er to check idleness and effrontery ; not because we are too fond of our 
possessions to part with them. So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to 
be ready to offer the other cheek, and to give, without desire of recovery, 
whatever is demanded or taken from us. Love knows no limits but those 
which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, it is because com- 
pliance would be a violation of love, not because it would involve loss or 
suffering. 

29. 14 téntovti oe emt Thy craydva. A violent blow with the 
fist seems to be meant rather than a contemptuous slap, for 
c.ayév means “jaw-bone” (Judg. xv. 15, 16; Ezek. xxix. 14; 
Mic. v. 4; Hos. xi. 4). In what follows also it is an act of 
violence that is meant; for in that case the upper and more 
valuable garment (iudriov) would be taken first. In Mt. v. 40 the 
spoiler adopts a legal method of spoliation (xp:@jvar), and takes 
the under and less indispensable garment (xiréva) first. See on 
ili. 11 and comp. Jn. xix. 23. 


Here only do we find témrev émi c. dat. In class, Grk. ¢. gen., ¢.2. 
éml xéppns TimTev or maTtdccev (Plato, Gorg. 486 C, 508 D, 527 A). Some- 
times we have els (Mt. xxvii. 30), which some MSS. read here and xwiii. 13. 
Comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 5. So also xwvew dxé is not common. Comp. od 

Bh Kwdtoe 7d pynuciov atrod amd cob (Gen. xxii. 6) and dméd cod Kwhiwy 
(Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 11, iii. 3. 51). The more usual constr. both in N.T. and 
class. Grk. is either acc. and inf, (xxii. 2; Acts xvi. 6, xxiv. 23) or acc. of 
pers. and gen. of thing (Acts xxvii. 43). Note that alpew does not mean 
simply ‘‘ take, ” which is AauSdvew, but either “take up” (v. 24, ix. 23) or 
“take away ” (xix. 24, xxiii. 18). 


80. ravti aitoiyti ce Si80v. There is no zayré in Mt. v. 42, 
and this is one of many passages which illustrate Lk.’s fondness 


for was (ver. 17, Vil. 35, ix. 43, xi. 4). The zav7i has been 
differently understood. ‘No one is to be excluded, not even 


186 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |VL 30, 81. 


one’s enemies ” (Meyer, Weiss). Omni petenti te tribue, non omnia 
petenti ; ut id des, quod dare honeste et juste potes (Aug.). Neither 
remark is quite right. Our being able to give juste e¢ toneste 
depends not only on what is asked, but upon who asks it. Some 
things must not be conceded to any one. Others ought to be 
given to some petitioners, but not to all. In every case, however, 
we ought to be wzddimg to part with what may be lawfully given 
to any. The wish to keep what we have got is not the right motive 
for refusing. 

Sidou, Kal dad Tod aipovtos TA od py dmaiter. The pres. in all 
three cases implies continual action, making a practice of it. 
‘Continually give, and from him who continues to take away thy 
goods do not continue to ask them again.” For aipey in the sense 
of “‘take as one’s own, appropriate,” comp. xi. 52, xix. 21; Mk. 
xv. 24. It does not imply that violence is used. But the py 
amaire. implies that hitherto asking them back has been usual. 
The verb dzairety is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xii. 20: comp. Wisd. 
xv. 8; Ecclus. xx. 15; Hdt.i. 3. 2). Prof. Marshall thinks that 
we have here another instance of different translation of the same 
Aramaic, and that Lk.’s aipovros and Mt.’s dave(oacGar may repre- 
sent the same word ; also Lk.’s darairee and Mt.’s droortpagyjs. See 
on vy. 21 and villi. 15. 

31. Kal KaOas Oédkere. The xai introduces the general principle 
which covers all these cases: “and in short, in a word.” How 
would one wish to be treated oneself if one was an aggressor? 
How ought one to wish to be treated? But obviously the principle 
covers.a great deal more than the treatment of aggressors and 
mnemies. In Tobit iv. 15 we have, “Do that to no man which 
thou hatest” ; but this purely negative precept, which was common 
with the Rabbis, falls immeasurably short of the positive command 
of Christ. Isocrates has @ wdacxovres id’ Erépwv dpyilerbe, tatra 
tois GAXots py) Toveire, and the Stoics said, Quod tibi fieri non vis, 
alteri ne feceris; and the same is found in Buddhism. In the 
Avdaxy, i. 2, and Agost. Const. vii. 2. 1, we have both the positive 
and the negative form. Cod. D, Iren. (iii. 12. 14), Cypr. (Zest. 
iii. 119) and other authorities insert the negative form Acts xv. 29. 
How inadequate the so-called Rabbinical parallels to the Sermon 
on the Mount are, as collected by Wiinsche and others, has been 
shown by Edersheim (Z. & 7. i. p. 531). Note the xaGus, “even 
as, precisely as”: the conformity is to be exact. For @ékew tva 
comp. Mt. vii. 12; Mk. vi. 25, ix. 30, x. 35; Jn. xvii. 24, and see 
on iv. 3. The xat tyeis before zovetre is omitted by B and some 
Latin texts. ‘Do likewise” occurs only here, ili. rz, and x. 37. 

32-35. Interested affection is of little account: Christian love 
is of necessity disinterested ; unlike human love, it embraces what 
is repulsive and repellent. 


VI. 82-35.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 187 


82. mola Gpiv xdpis. “What kind of thank, or favour, have 
you?” This may be understood either of the gratitude of the 
persons loved or of the favour of God. The latter is better, and is 
more clearly expressed by riva puoOdv éxere; (Mt. v. 46). Other- 
wise there does not seem to be much point in oi duaprwAoi. For 
xdpis of Divine favour comp. i. 30, ii. 40, 52; Acts vil. 46. 

kal yap. ‘‘For even”; xam etcam. Comp. Mt. viii. 9; Mk. vii. 28, 
X. 45; Jn. iv. 45; 1 Cor. xii. 14; and see Ellicott on 2 Thes. iii, 10; Meyer 
on 2 Cor, xiii. 4. 

83. Here only is aya@omovetv found with an acc. after it. It does not 
occur in profane writers, and elsewhere in N.T. is absolute: vv. 9, 35; Mk. 
iii, 4; 1 Pet. ii, 15, 20, iii. 6,17; 3 Jn. 11. But in 1 Pet. and 3 Jn. it is 
used of doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong, whereas in 
Lk. and Mt. it is used, as in LXX, of helping others as opposed to harm- 
ing them: Num. x. 32; Jud. xvii. 13 (Cod. B dyaOuvet); Zeph. i. 12. 
Hatch, Bz6/. Grk. p. 7; but see Lft. on Clem. Rom. Cov. ii. p. 17. 


For dpaptwdot Mt. has in the one case reA@vor and in the 
other é6vuxoi. Of course both “publicans” and “heathen” are 
here used in a moral sense, because of their usual bad character ; 
and Weiss confidently asserts that Lk. is here interpreting, while 
Mt. gives the actual words used. But it is possible that Mt. 
writing as a Jew, has given the classes who to Jews were sinners 
kat’ efoxyv instead of the general term. 

84. This third illustration has no parallel in Mt., but see Mt. 
v. 42; and comp. Prov. xix. 17. 


Savlonre. The texts are divided between this form, davelonre, davelfnre, 
and davelfere. In N.T. davlfw is to be preferred to davelfw, which is the 
class. form. The verb means to ‘“‘lend upon zéerest,” whereas klxpyue 
indicates a friendly loan; and therefore 7&4 toa would include both interest 


and principal, 

GmokdBwouw. “Receive as their due, receive Jack,” or perhaps 
“receive zz full” ; comp. dzréxw in ver. 24, and see Lft. on Gal. iv. 
5; also Ellicott and Meyer. The phrase dod. ta toa need not 
mean more than “‘receive equivalent services,” but more probably 
it refers to repayment in full: comp. épaviw and avrepavilw. 

85. m\yv. See on ver. 24. ‘ Suz, when this kind of interested 
affection has been rejected as worthless, what must be aimed at is 
this.” Note the pres. imperat. throughout: “ Hadztually love, do 
good, and lend”; also that Christ does not change the word 
davi¢ere, nor intimate that it does not here have its usual meaning 
of lending on interest. 

pydev daedmilovres. The meaning of this famous saying de- 
pends partly upon the reading, whether we read pyde or pydéva,! 


1 The external evidence stands thus— 
For pndév dn. ABLRXT Aete., Latt. Syr-Harcl.? Boh. 
For pydéva da. N= II*; Syrr. Tisch. is almost alone among recent 
editors in preferring wydéva ; WH. and RV. place in the margin. 


188 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VL 35. 


but mainly upon the interpretation of deAmi{ovres. All English 
Versions previous to RV. adopt the common view that dzeAz. 
means “hoping for in return,” a meaning which is without example, 
but which is supposed to be justified by the context, or rather by 
the corrupted context. Thus Field argues: “No doubt this use of 
the word is nowhere else to be met with; but the context is here 
too strong for philological guzbd/es (!). ‘If ye lend to them zap’ év 
“EATIIZETE *AIIO\aBeiv, what thank have ye?’ Then follows the 
precept: ‘ Lend pndev “AITEATIIZONTES,’ which can by no possi- 
bility bear any other meaning than pydev eAmilovres aroAaPetv ” 
(Otium JNorv. ili. p. 40). The argument would be precarious, even 
if the facts were as stated ; but the true reading is wap dy éAmi€ere 
AaBety (8 BL, Justin), and therefore the whole falls to the ground. 
The usual meaning of dveArilw, “I give up in despair,” makes 
excellent sense ; either “despairing of nothing,” or “ despairing of 
no one” (uydéva). “ Despairing of nothing” or “ never despairing ” 
may mean either “never doubting that God will requite you,” or 
“never despairing about your money.” The latter meaning is 
almost identical with “ despairing of no one,” ze. “never doubting 
that your creditor will pay.” But it has been suggested that pydeva 
may be eut. plur., on the authority of Steph. Zzesaur. v. col. 962 
[iii. col. 3645]. If this were correct, the two readings would have 
the same meaning. On the authority of a single passage in the 
Anthologia Palatina (ii. 114, p. 325, Brunck), Liddle and Scott 
give dveAri~w a transitive meaning, “causing to despair”; but 
there aAAov dmedzifwv (of an astrologer who said that a person had 
only nine months to live) may mean “giving him up in despair”: 
comp. Polyb. ii. 54. 7. Therefore we may safely abandon the 
common interpretation and render “giving up nothing in despair” 
or ‘never despairing.” Comp. émi didov éav ordons poudatay, py 
dreArions (Ecclus. xxii. 21); 6 O& daoxadtwas puorypia aaydmie 
(xxvii. 21); Ta Kat airdv arndricas (2 Mac. ix. 18), of Antiochus 
when stricken with an incurable disease. Galen often uses the 
verb of desperate cases in medicine; see Hobart, p. 118, and Wetst.! 
D and many early Latin texts have #zhz/ desperantes. See the valuable 

note in Wordsworth’s Vulgate, p. 344. But he thinks it Zosszb/e that Lk. 


may have written dae\mlfew for éAmlfev dad on the analogy of drec@leap for 
éoOlew dé and dmodaBelv for AaBety ad, 





1 What mischief the common interpretation (sanctioned by the Vulgate, mzhz? 
tnde sperantes) has wrought in Europe is strikingly shown by Dollinger (Aéa- 
demische Vortrage, i. pp. 223 ff. ; Studzes in European History, pp. 224 ff.) 
On the strength of it Popes and councils have repeatedly condemned the taking 
of any interest whatever for loans. As loans could not be had without interest, 
and Christians were forbidden to take it, money-lending passed into the hands 
of the Jews, and added greatly to the unnatural detestation in which Jews were 
held. The paradox that Christians may not take interest has been revived by 
Ruskin. 


VI. 35-38.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 189 


cece viol “Yicrov. In Mt. v. 9 peacemakers are called viot 
@cov. The moral likeness proves the parentage. Just as in 2. 
32, 33 Lk. has the generic duaprwAot where Mt. has the specific 
TeAX@vat and éOvixol, so here we have “‘ zs £imd towards the unthank- 
ful and evil” instead of ‘“‘ maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the 
good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Mt. v. 45). 
For ‘YWiorov comp. i. 32, 35, 76. 

36, 37. A further development of the principle of Christian 
love. Having told His disciples to cherish no personal animus 
against those who injure them, He now warns them against judging 
others respecting any supposed misconduct. To pose as a general 
censor morum is unchristian. Censoriousness is a transgression of 
the royal law of love, and an invasion of the Divine prerogatives. 
Not only vengeance but judgment belongs to God. And judgment, 
when it is inevitable, must be charitable (aoAvere), directed by a 
desire to acquit rather than to condemn. Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4; 
Jas. iv. 11, 12. Hillel said, “ Judge not thy neighbour until thou 
comest ines his place” (Ewald, Ast. of Israel, vi. p. 27). See on 
ver. 31. 

The loose citations of these two verses by Clement of Rome (i. 13. 2) and 
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 18, p. 476, ed. Potter) are interesting. th 
have the words as xpyorevecbe, obrws xpyorevOjcerat duty immediately before 
@ pérpw, K.T.A. They represent ylvecGe olxripuoves in Lk., for which Justin 
has yiveoOe 5& xpyorol Kal oixripyoves (Try. xcvi.; Apol. i. 15). Comp. Clem. 
Hom. iii. 57. It is probable that Clem. Alex. here quotes Clem. Rom. uncon- 
sciously. 

88. The transition is easy from charity in judging others to 
benevolence in general. Comp. ver. 30 and iii. 11. God remains 
in debt to no man. “He giveth not by measure” (Jn. iii. 34), 
nor does He recompense by measure, unless man serves Him by 
measure. Disciples who serve in the spmit_of love make no 
such calculations, and are amply repaid. We are here assured of 
this fact in an accumulation of metaphors, which form a climax. 
They are evidently taken from the measuring of corn, and Bengel 
is clearly wrong in interpreting izepexyvyvopevor of fluids: eis tov 
koAzrov is conclusive. The asyndeton is impressive. 


The form dzepexxuvyduevoy seems to occur nowhere else, excepting as 
v./, Joel ii. 24. The class. form is trepexxéw. 

Sdcoucw eis Tov KéATTOv Gudv. Who shall give? Not the persons 
benefited, but the instruments of Gfd’s bounty. The verb is 
almost impersonal, “there shall b¢ given,” do06joera. Comp. 
airovow (xii. 20) and airjoovow (xii. 48). The xddmos is the fold 
formed by a loose garment overhanging a girdle. This was often 
used as a pocket (Exod. iv. 6; Prov. vi. 27; and esp. Ps. Ixxix. 
12; Is. Ixv. 6; Jer. xxxii. 18). Camp. Hdt. vi. 125. 5; Liv. xxi. 
18. 10; Hor. Sav. ii. 3. 172, and other illustrations in Wetst. 


190 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 88-40. 


& yap pétpw petpetre. There is no inconsistency, as Weiss 
states (stimmt immer nicht recht), with what precedes; but he is 
right in condemning such interpretations as 76 air pérpw, ov pyv 
tocovTw (Theophyl.) and eadem mensura in genere sed exuberans 
(Grot.) as evasions. The loving spirit uses no measure in its services; 
and then God uses no measure in requiting. But the niggardly and 
grudging servant, who tries to do just the minimum, receives just 
the minimum in return. In Mk. iv. 24, 25 we have this saying 
with a different application. 

89. The second half of the discourse begins here, and this is 
marked by a repetition of the introductory Eimev. The connexion 
with what precedes perhaps is, that, before judging others, we must 
judge ourselves ; otherwise we shall be blind leaders of the blind. 
This saying occurs in quite another connexion Mt. xv. 14. It 
may easily have been uttered several times, and it is a common- 
place in literature. We are thus shown the manifold application 
of Christ’s sayings, and the versatility of truth. See Wetst. on Mt. 
xv. 14. With the exception of Mk. xii. 12, the phrase etwev tapa- 
Bodyy is peculiar to Lk. (xii. 16, xv. 3, xviii. 9, xix. II, xX. 19, 
xxi. 29). 

eis Bd0uvov. “Into a pit” rather than “into the ditch,” which 
all English Versions prior to RV. have both here and Mt. xv. 14. 
In Mt. xii. 11 nearly all have “a pit.” The word is a doublet of 
Bo@pos, puteus, and is perhaps connected with Babs. Palestine is 
full of such things, open wells without walls, unfenced quarries, 
and the like. For éd7yetv comp. Acts viii. 31; Jn. xvi. 13; Ps. 
XMiv.. 5, Ixxxv. 11, Cxviil. 35; Wisd,-ix. 11, X. 17 

40. This again is one of Christ’s frequent sayings. Here the 
connexion seems to be that disciples will not get nearer to the 
truth than the teacher does, and therefore teachers must beware of 
being blind and uninstructed, especially with regard to knowledge 
of self. In xxii. 27 and in Jn. xiii. 16 the meaning is that disciples 
must not set themselves above their master. In Mt. x. 24 the 
point is that disciples must not expect better treatment than their 
master. So also in Jn. xv. 20, which was a different occasion. 

KaTypTicpevos Sé Tas EoTat ws SiSdoKados av’tov. The sentence 
may be taken in various ways. 1. Every well instructed disciple 
shall be as his master (AV.). 2. Every disciple, when he has 
been well instructed, shall be as his master. 3. Every disciple 
shall be as well instructed as his master (Tyn. Cran.). But Per- 
fectus autem omnis erit, si sit sicut magister ejus (Vulg.), “ Every one 
shall be perfect, if he be as his master” (Rhem.), Wenn der Jiinger 
ist wie sein Meister, so ist er vollkommen (Luth.), is impossible. 
The meaning is that the disciple will not excel his master; at the 
best he will only equal him. And, if the master has faults, the 
disciple will be likely to copy them. 


Vi. 40-43 } THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I9I 


For xataptif{w, ‘make &prios, equip,” comp. Mt. iv. 21; Mk. i. 19; 
1 Thes. iii. 10; Gal. vi. 1; Heb. x. 5, xi. 3, xiii. 21. It is a surgical word, 
used of setting a bone or joint: for examples see Wetst. on Mt. iv, 21. There 
is no mas in Mt. x. 24, 25: see on ver. 30. 


41, 42. In order to avoid becoming a blind teacher, whose 
disciples will be no better than oneself, one must, before judging 
and attempting to correct others, correct oneself. Self-knowledge 
and self-reform are the necessary preparation of the reformer, 
without which his work is one of presumption rather than of love. 

“Al, wdpdos, ‘Anything small and dry”: in class, Grk. usually in plur, 

of chips, twigs, bits of wood, etc. Curtius connects it with oxapplov, “‘a 
splinter” (Gr. Etym. 683); but better with kdpgdew, “to dry up. | Ip 
Gen. viii. 11 it is used of the olive twig brought by the dove. See Wetst. on 
Mt. vii. 3. The Séxos is the ‘‘bearing-beam, main beam,” that which 
receives (d¢xouat) the other beams in a roof or floor, It is therefore as 
necessarily large as a xdpdos is small, 


katavoets, ‘Fix thy mind upon.” It expresses prolonged 
attention and observation. Careful consideration of one’s own 
faults must precede attention to those of others. The verb is 
specially freq. in Lk. (xii. 24, 27, xx. 23; Acts xi. 6, xxvil. 39: 
comp. Heb. iii. 1, x. 24; Rom. iv. 19). 

42, mas Suvacat dye. ‘With what face can you adopt this 
tone of smug patronage?” In Mt. vii. 4 the patronizing “Adehoé 
is wanting. 

Gdes éxBddw. For the simple subj. after ddlyue comp. Mt. xxvii. 49 ; 
Mk. xv. 36. Epict. Déss. i. 9. 15, iii, 12. 15.. In modern Greek it is the 
regular idiom, Win. xli. 4. b, p. 356.—In od BAéwov we have the only 


instance in Lk. of od with a participle: ‘‘ When thou dost not look at, much 
less anxiously consider ” (katavowy) : see small print on i. 20. 


émoxpitd. The hypocrisy consists in his pretending to be so 
pained by the presence of trifling evil that he is constrained to 
endeavour to remove it. Comp. xili. 15. That he conceals his 
own sins is not stated; to some extent he is not aware of them. 
The tére means “then, and not till then”; and the S1aBdders is 
neither imperative nor concessive, but the simple future. When 
self-reformation has taken place, then it will be possible to see 
how to reform others. Note the change from BdAéew to diaBde- 
mew; not merely look at, but “see clearly.” In class. Grk. 
duaBAerw means “look fixedly,” as in deep thought. Plato notes 
it as a habit of Socrates (edo, 86 D). 

43. ob ydp éotw. Codex D and some versions omit the yap, 
the connexion with the preceding not being observed. The con- 
nexion is close. A good Christian cannot but have good results 
in the work of converting others, and a bad Christian cannot have 
such, for his bad life will more than counteract his efforts to 
reclaim others. 


192 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (VI. 43-48, 


The etymological connexion between xapmés (cargo, Herbst, harvest) and 
kdppos is by no means certain. But if it is a fact, it has no place here. The 
hhrase mrovety Kap7rdév is not classical, but a Hebraism (iii. 9, viil. 8, xiii. 9; Gen. 
1. II, 12; Ps. cvii. 37). By campév (ojmw) is meant (1) what is “rotten, 
putrid,” and (2) what is ‘‘ worthless.” See Wetst. on Mt. vii. 18. A rotten 
tree would produce no fruit ; and fishes just caught would not be putrid (Mt. 
xiii. 48). In both places the secondary meaning is required. 


44, The unreformed can no more reform others than thorns 
and briars can produce figs and grapes. It is by their fruits that 
each comes to be known (ywvwcxerar). The identification of the 
many Hebrew words which denote thorny shrubs is a hopeless 
task. Neither the originals nor their Greek representatives can be 
satisfactorily determined (Groser, Z7ees and Plants of the Bible, 
p. 172). Elsewhere in N.T. Baros is used of the burning bush 
(xx. 37; Acts vil. 30, 35; Mk. xii. 26; Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4): in Hom. 
it is a “thorn-bush, bramble” (Od. xxiv. 230). The verb tpvyaw 
is specially used of the vintage (Rev. xiv. 18, 19; Lev. xix. 10, 
XXV. 5, I1; Deut. xxiv. 21). Comp. the similar sayings Jas. iii. 
II, 12, which are probably echoes of Christ’s teaching as remem- 
bered by the Lord’s brother. 

45. This forms a link with the next section. When men are 
natural, heart and mouth act in concert. But otherwise the mouth 
sometimes professes what the heart does not feel. 


46-49. The Judgments which await the Members of the King- 
dom. The Sanction or Warning. Mt. vii. 13-27. This is some- 
times called the Epilogue or the Peroration: but it is not a mere 
summing up. It sets forth the consequences of following, and the 
consequences of not following, what has been enjoined. 


46. The question here asked may be addressed to all dis- 
ciples, none of whom are perfect. The inconsistency of calling 
Him Lord and yet failing in obedience to Him was found even 
in Apostles. What follows shows that the question applies to 
the whole of Christian conduct. Of the four parables in the latter 
half of the sermon, the first two (the blind leading the blind; the 
mote and the beam) have special reference to the work of correct- 
ing others; the third (the good and bad trees) may be either 
special or general ; while the fourth (the wise and foolish builders) 
is quite general. With Kupe comp. xiii. 25; Mt. xxv. 11, 12; 
Jas. i. 22, 26. 

47. For mas & épxdpevos see small print on i. 66, and for 
Srodeigw see on iii. 7 and Fritzsche on Mt. iii. 7. 

48. goxapev Kai €Bdbuvey kal eOnxev Oepediov. “He dug and 
went deep (not a hendiadys for ‘dug deep’) and laid a founda- 
tion.” The whole of this graphic description is peculiar to Lk. 


VI. 48, 49.] THE MINISTRY IN GALiLEE 193 


Robinson stayed in a new house at Nazareth, the owner of which 
had dug down for thirty feet in order to build upon rock (Res. ia 
Fal. ii. p. 338). The parables in Mt. and Lk. are so far identical 
that in both the two builders desire to have their houses near a 
water-course, water in Palestine being very precious. In Mt. they 
build on different places, the one on the rock and the other on 
the sand, such as is often found in large level tracts by a dry 
water-course. Nothing is said about the wise builder digging 
through the sand till he comes to rock. Each finds what seems 
to him a good site ready to hand. 

TAnppipys. “A flood,” whether from a river or a sea: and 
hence a flood of troubles and the like. See Jos. Ant. ii. 10. 2 
and examples in Wetst. Here only in N.T., and in LXX only 
Job xx. 23. 

obk icxucev. “Had not strength to.” The expression is a 
favourite one with Lk. (viii. 43, xilil. 24, xiv. 6, 29, xvi. 3, xx. 26; 
Acts vi. Io, xv. _I0, xix. 16, 20, XXV. 7, XXVil. 16). For palin 
comp. vii. 24, xxi. 26; Acts ii. 25 fr. Ps. xv. 8, iv. 31: freq. in LXX. 


Sia Td KaAGS olkoSopyobat aityv. This is certainly the true reading 
(8 BL& 33 157, Boh. Syr-Harcl. marg.). The common reading, reBeueNlwro 
yap éxl tiv rétpav (AC DX etc.; Latt. Syrr. Goth. Arm.), is obviously 
taken from Mt. The Ethiopic combines the two readings, 


49. 1 mpocépyéev 6 wotapds. Lk. gives only the main incident, 
the river, created by the Tain, smiting the house. But Mt. is much 
more graphic : KaréBn 7 pox kal WA@ov ot woTapol Kal érvevoav 
DL dvepou kat mpocéKowav TH oixig éxeivn. 

cuvénecev. “It fell in,” ze. the whole fell together in a heap: 
much more expressive than é érecev, which some texts (A C) here 
borrow from Mt. 

éyéveto Td piiypo. To harmonize with zpocépyfev. This use of 
pyype for “ruin” (so first in Rhem.) seems to be without example. 
In class. Grk. it is used of bodily fractures or ruptures, and also of 
clothes ; so also in 1 Kings xi. 30, 31; 2 Kings i ii. 12. But Amos 
vi. 11 of rents ina building, matage Tov olkov Tov péyav OAdcpacw, 
kal TOV Olkov TOV ptKpov pdypacey. Hobart contrasts the Bpoxn, 
mporéxoyay, érecev, and mrdois of Mt. with the tAnpprvpa, rpocép- 
ongev, ovverecer, and fiypa of Lk., and contends that the latter 
four belong to medical phraseology (pp. 5b 8G): 

The péya, like peydAy in Mt., comes last with emphasis. 
Divine instruction, intended for building up, must, if neglected, 
produce disastrous ruin. The xe?rac cis rrdow (ii. 34) is fulfilled. 
The audience are left with the crash of the unreal disciple’s house 
sounding in their ears. 


Similar Rabbinical sayings are quoted, but as co ms who lived 
after A.D. 100, by which time Christ’s teaching had red Bleed es both Jewish 


13 


194 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |VL 49-VIZ 2. 


and pagan thought. ‘‘ Whosesoever wisdom is above his works, to what is he 
like? Toa tree whose branches are many and its roots few. Then the wind 
cometh and rooteth it up and turneth it over. And, whosesoever works are 
above his wisdom, to what is he like? To a tree whose branches are few and 
its roots many. Though all the winds come upon it, they move it not from its 
place” (AZishna, Pirge aboth, III. xxvii.) And again, ‘*To whom is he 
like, that with many merits uniteth great wisdom? To him who first layeth 
granite blocks and then bricks. Though ever so mighty floods wash round the 
building, yet they cannot make it give way. But to whom is he like, who 
knoweth much and fulfilleth little? To him who layeth the foundation with 
bricks, which are disturbed by the least water (40th R. Nathan, xxiii.). See 
Edersh, Z. & 7. i. p. 540; Nicholson on Mt. vii. 24. 


VII. 1. The division of the chapters is misleading. This 
verse forms the conclusion of the preceding narrative quite in 
Lk.’s manner. Comp. iv. 30, 37, 44, V. I1, 16, 26, vi. 11, etc. 
It is not the introduction to what follows, for Jesus must have 
been in Capernaum some time before the centurion heard about 
Him. Lk. says nothing about the impression which the discourse 
made upon the people (Mt. vii. 28), nor about their following Him 
(Mt. viii. 1). 


*Emetdy éwhypocev wavta Ta fypata avtov, This is the only place in 
N.T. in which é7ed4 is used in the temporal sense of ‘‘after that, when 
now.” Hence ’Ervel dé is found in many texts. K_ has ’Emed) dé, while D 
has Kal éyévero ére. In the causal sense of ‘‘since, seeing that,” éed7 
occurs only in Lk. and Paul (xi. 6; Acts xiii. 46, xiv. 12, xv. 24; 1 Cor, 
i, 21, 22, xiv. 16, xv. 21). See Ellicott on Phil. ii. 26. For émAjpwoe, 
““completed,” so that no more remained to be said, comp. Acts xii. 25, 
xiii. 25, xiv. 26, xix. 21. 

eis Tas Gkous TOV Aaov, The els marks the direction of what was said: 
comp. i. 44, iv. 44; Acts xi. 22, xvii. 20. Both in bibl. Grk. and in class. 
Grk. dxo# has three senses. 1. ‘‘ The thing heard, report” (1 Sam. ii. 24; 
1 Kings ii, 28; Jn. xii. 38; Rom. x. 16). 2. ‘*The sense of hearing” 
(2:Sam. xxii. 4, 55 Job. xii. 53 1 Cor. xii. 173 2 PeteiS)seeseeene 
ear” (Mk, viie 35; Heb. v. 11; 2 Mac. xv. 39). 


2-10. The healing of the Centurion’s Servant at Capernaum. 
Mt. viii. 5-13. Mt. places the healing of the leper (Lk. v. 12--14) 
between the Sermon on the Mount and the healing of the cen- 
turion’s slave. This centurion was a heathen by birth (ver. 9), and 
was probably in the service of Antipas. He had become in some 
degree attracted to Judaism (ver. 5), and was an illustration of the 
great truth which Lk. delights to exhibit, that Gentile and Jew 
alike share in the blessings of the kingdom. The azima naturaliter 
Christiana of the man is seen in his affection for his slave. 

2. 7pedev teheutav. “ Was on the point of dying,” and would 
have done so but for this intervention (Acts xii. 6, xvi. 27, etc.). 
Burton, § 73. For évtipos, “held in honour, held dear,” comp. 
xiv. 83 Phil. ii. 29; 1 Pet. it. 4, 6; Is. xxviii. 16. ) Giegmer 
explains why this deputation of elders came. 


VII. 3-6.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 195 


8. dméotetbev mpds aidtév mpeoButépous. These elders (no 
article) would be leading citizens ; but they need not be identified 
with the dpyicwvdywyor (viii. 49, xili. 14; Acts xiii. 15, xviii. 8, 17), 
as Godet formerly advocated. The compound wiacdfew, “to 
bring safe through,” is almost peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts 
XXlil. 24, XXVli. 43, 44, xxvilil. 1, 4; Mt. xiv. 36; 1 Pet. iii. 20). 

4. ot 8¢ mapayevdpevot. A favourite verb (ver. 20, vill. 19, 
xi, 6, xii. 51, Xiv. 21, xix. 16, xxii. 52; and about twenty times in 
Acts): elsewhere in N.T. eight or nine times, but very freq. in 
LXX. 


aiuéds éotiv & wapdé—y tovTo, ‘He is worthy that Thou shouldest do 
this for him”; 2 sing. fut. mid. The reading wapéEe (GT A) is 3 sing. fut. 
act. and must not be taken as analogous to the exceptional forms ole, yet, 
and Bove. But beyond doubt wapéEy (SN ABCDRZ& ete.) is the correct 
reading. 


5. dyamd yap 7d €0vos jpav. This would hardly be said of one 
who was actually a proselyte. He had learned to admire and 
respect the pure worship of the Jews and to feel affection for the 
people who practised it. This would be all the more likely if he 
were in the service of the Herods rather than that of heathen 
Rome. 

Thy cuvaywyhy adtés dkoddpyoev jpiv. ‘ At his own expense he 
built us ovr synagogue,” the one which we have; not “a syna- 
gogue” (AV.). Had Capernaum only one synagogue? 


If 7e// Him represents Capernaum, and if the ruins of the synagogue there 
are from a building of this date, they show with what liberality this centurion 
had carried out his pious work. But it is doubtful whether the excellent work 
exhibited in these ruins is quite so early as the first century. The centurions 
appear in a favourable light in N.T. (xxili. 47; Acts x. 22, xxii. 26, xxiii. 17, 
23, 24, xxiv. 23, xxvii. 43). Roman organization produced, and was maintained 
by, excellent individuals, who were a blessing to others and themselves. As 
Philo says, after praising Petronius the governor of Syria, rots 5¢ dyaOots dyabas 
imnxeiv Eorxe yowopas 6 Oeds Ov dv whedrodvres SPednOjoovrat (Leg. ad Caium, 
p. 1027, ed. Gelen.). Augustus had recognized the value of synagogues in 
maintaining order and morality. 


6. oF poxpdy, Comp. Acts xvii. 27. The expression is 
peculiar to Lk., who is fond of od with an adj. or ady. to express 
his meaning. Comp. od zoAAoi (xv. 13; Acts i. 5), od roAv (Acts 
XXVii. 14), ov« 6Aryds (Acts xii, 18, xiv. 28, xv. 2, xvil. 4, 12, 
xix. 23, 24, XXvii. 20), ok 6 tuxdv (Acts xix. 11, xxviii. 2), od 
donpos (Acts xxi. 39), ov perpiws (Acts xx. 12). 

érepipev pious. Comp. xv. 6, Acts x. 24. Mt. says nothing about 
either of these deputations, but puts the message of both into the 
mouth of the centurion himself, who comes in person. In Lk. the 
man’s humility and faith prevail over his anxiety as soon as he sees 
that the first deputation has succeeded, and that the great Rabbi 


196 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIL 6-9. 


and Prophet is really coming to him. Therefore he sends the 
second deputation to say that he is not worthy of a visit, and that 
the visit is not necessary. 

Kupte, py oxtddouv. “Lord, cease to trouble Thyself.” The 
verb is a marked instance of the tendency of words to become 
weaker in meaning: oxtAXw (cKdAov, xi. 22) is 1. “flay”; 2 
“mangle”; 3. “vex, annoy” (viii. 49; Mk. v. 35; Mt. ix. 36). 
See Lxfositor, 1st series, 1876, iv. pp. 30, 31. What follows 
seems to show that the centurion was not a proselyte. The house 
of a Gentile was polluting to a Jew; and therefore ov yap ixavds 
eit, k.7.., is quite in point if he was still a heathen. But it is 
rather strong language if he had ceased to be a heathen. For wa 
after ixavds see Burton, § 216. 

7. eimé Aéyo, kat iabytw 6 wats pou. Lit. “Say with a word, 
and let my servant be healed.” The word is to be the instrument 
with which the healing is to take place, instead of Jesus’ coming in 
person: comp. Acts li. 40 and Gal. vi. 11. There is no doubt 
that 6 zais wou means “ my servant.” This use is found in N.T. 
(xii. 45, xv. 26; Mt. vili. 6, 8, 13), and is very freq. in LXX and in 
class. Grk, 


It has been contended that in Mt. viii. 6, 8, 13 mats must mean ‘‘son,” 
because the centurion calls his servant dodAos in ver. 9: as if it were improbable 
that a person in the same conversation should speak sometimes of his ‘‘ servant” 
and sometimes of his ‘‘boy.” In both narratives wats and doAos are used as 
synonyms ; and it is gratuitous to suppose that in using dod\os Lk. has misin- 
terpreted the mats in the source which he employed. Comp. xv. 22, 26. Here 
6 mais pov is more affectionate than 6 dodAds wou would have been, 


8. éy> advOpwrds eipr bad efovcrav tacodpevos. The ety 
must not be united with racoduevos and made the equivalent of 
TdgoopaL: Tacodpevos is adjectival. Thus, “For I am a man who 
is habitually (pres. part.) placed under authority.” But, “For I 
am an ordinary person (dv@pw7os), avd a person in a dependent 
position ” is rather an exaggeration of the Greek. Comp. tro THY 
Tod Bacidéus éfovoiay weocivy (2 Mac. iii. 6). The Kal yap shows 
the intimate connexion with what precedes, eizé Adyw Kat iabyrw : 
see on vi. 32. “I know from personal experience what a word 
from one in authority can do. A word from my superiors secures 
my obedience, and a word from me secures the obedience of my 
subordinates. Thou, who art under no man, and hast authority 
over unseen powers, hast only to say a word and the sickness is 
healed.” Perhaps dvOpurros hints that Jesus is superhuman. 
Evidently $16 e€ovotay tagcdpevos means that, if an inferior can 
give effective orders, much more can a superior do so. It is the 
certainty of the result wzthout ‘ personal presence that is the point. 

9. 5 "Ingots 2batpacev adtov. This is stated in both narratives 
Comp. Mk. vi. 6. Those who are unwilling to admit any limita- 


VII. 9, 10.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 197 


tions in Christ’s knowledge have to explain how wonder is com- 
patible with omniscience. One limitation is clearly told us by 
Himself (Mk. xiii. 32); so that the only question is how far such 
limitations extend. See on ii. 46, 52, and xvii. 14. Note the 
solemn Adyw Spiv, and comp. ver. 28, x. 12, 24, x1. 8, 9, 51, etc. 

ovdé év TO “Iopahd tooadtyy mlotw ebpov. This again points co 
the centurion being still a heathen. Nowhere among the Jews had 
He found any one willing to believe that He could heal without 
being present. It is natural that Lk. should express this preference 
for a Gentile more strongly than Mt., who has zap’ oddevi tooavrnv 
miotw év T4 IopayA evpov. Lk. here omits the remarkable passage 
Mt. viii. 11, 12; but he gives it in quite a different connexion 
xiii. 28, 29. Such teaching, so necessary and so unwelcome to the 
Jews, may easily have been repeated. 

10. étootpépavres. See oni. 56 and iv. 14. Lk.’s bytatvovta is 
stronger than the id@7 of Mt. The servant was not only cured, but 
“in good health.” Von modo sanum, sed sanitate utentem (Beng.) 
Hobart remarks that Lk. “is the only N.T. writer who uses tyatvew 
in this its primary sense, ‘to be in sound health,’ with the exception 
of S. John, 3 Ep. 2. For this meaning it is the regular word in 
the medical writers” (p. 10). See on v. 31 and comp. xv. 27. 
Here and v. 31 Vulg. has sanus ; in xv. 27, salvus. 


The identification of this miracle with that of the healing of the son of the 
royal official (BaotAckés) in Jn. iv. is not probable: it involves an amount of 
misinformation or carelessness on one side or the other which would be very 
startling. Irenzeus seems to be in favour of it; but ‘‘ centurion ” with him may 
be a slip of memory ora misinterpretation of BaoiAtcds. Origen and Chrysostom 
contend against the identification. Is there any difficulty in supposing that on 
more than one occasion Jesus healed without being present? ‘The difficulty is 
to explain one such instance, without admitting the possession of supernatural 
powers: this Strauss has shown, and the efforts of Keim and Schenkel to 
explain it by a combination of moral and psychical causes are not satisfying. 
There is no parallel to it in O.T., for (as Keim points out) the healing of 
Naaman is not really analogous. 


11-17. §The Raising of the Widow’s Son at Nain. Because 
Lk. alone records it, its historical character has been questioned. 
But there were multitudes of miracles wrought by Christ which 
have never been recorded in detail at all (iv. 23, 40, 41, vi. 18, 19; 
Jn. ii. 23, iv. 45, vil. 31, xii. 37, XX. 30, Xxi. 25), and among these, 
as ver. 22 shows, were cases of raising the dead. We must not 
attribute to the Evangelists the modern way of regarding the raising 
of the dead as a miracle so amazing, because so difficult to perform, 
that every real instance would necessarily become widely known, 
and would certainly be recorded by every writer who had knowledge 
of it. To a Jew it would be hardly more marvellous than the heal- 
ing of a leper; and to one who believes in miracles at all, dis- 
tinctions as to difficulty are unmeaning. It is not unreasonable to 


198 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIZ 10-12. 


suppose, either that this‘event never came to the knowledge of the 
other Evangelists, or that, although they knew of it, they did not 
see the necessity for recording it. It is worth noting that nearly all 
recorded instances of raising the dead were performed for women 
(1 Kings xvii. 23; 2 Kings iv. 36; Jn. xi. 22, 32; Acts ix. 41; 
Heb. xi. 35). 


1. év 7 éf7s. It is not easy to decide between the reading év 7@ éf7s, 
se. xpbvw (ABR), and év rp éé7s, sc. qjuépa (NCD). On the one hand, Lk. 
elsewhere, when he writes év 7@, has xa0e&fs (viii. I) ; on the other, when he 
writes 77 és, he does not prefix év (ix. 37; Acts xxi. I, xxv. 17, xxvii. 18). 
The less definite would be more likely to be changed to the more definite than 
vice versa. Thus the balance both of external and internal evidence is in 
favour of év r@ é&fjs, and we must not limit the interval between the miracles 
toa single day. In N.T. é&7s is peculiar to Lk. (ix. 37; Acts xxi. I, xxv. 17, 
xxvil. 18). So also is ws nyyeoev (v. 12, xv. 25, xix. 29, 41). 


Naty. The place is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture ; and 
the village of that name in Josephus (B._/. iv. 9. 4) is on the other 
side of the Jordan, and cannot be the same. 


A hamlet called Wezz was found by Robinson about two miles west of 
Endor, on the north slope of Little Hermon, which is where Eusebius and 
Jerome place it; and it would be about a day’s journey from Capernaum. 
*¢ One entrance alone it could have had, that which opens on the rough hillside 
in its downward slope to the plain” (Stanley, Sz. &° Pal. p. 357); so that the 
very path on which the two companies met can be identified. About ten 
minutes’ walk on the road to Endor is a burying-place which is still used, and 
there are many tombs cut in the rock. Robinson, /a/. iii. p. 469; Bzb/. Res. 
ii. 361; Thomson, Land & Book, p. 445; Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 127. 
The expression, 7éAw kadoupévny Naty, looks as if Lk. were writing for those 
who were not familiar with the country ; comp. i. 26, 39, iv. 31. See on vi. 15. 


ot padyrat adtod. Including more than the Twelve; vi. 13. 
See on xi. 29. 

12. kat idS0d éfexopiLeto teOvnxds. “Behold there was being 
carried out a dead man.” Or, “there was being carried out dead 
the only son,” etc. The xaé introduces the apodosis of as dé 
nyy-oe, and must be omitted in translation: “then” would be too 
strong. See onv.12. The compound verb occurs here only in 
N.T. and nowhere in LXX. It is equivalent to éx@epew (Acts v. 
6, 9, 10) and efferre, and is used of carrying out to burial, Polyb. 
xxxv. 6. 2; Plut. Ags, xxi.; Cyc. xlii. In later Gk. éxxopdy is 
used for ék@opd of burial. With refvyxds comp. Jn. xi. 44. 

povoyevis vids TH pytpt adtod. Comp. vill. 42, ix. 38; Heb. 
xi. 17; Judg. xi. 34; Tobit iii. 15, viii. 17. Only in Jn. is povoyevys 
used of the Divine Sonship (i. 14, 18, ili. 16, 18; 1 Jn. iv. 9). 


kal avth jv xypa. The fv may safely be pronounced to be certainly 
genuine (NBC LSV®& and most Versions). For air# some editors write 
airy, and a few authorities have xal airy x7pg. The mourning of a widow 
for an only son is typical for the extremity of grief: orba cum flet unicum 


VIL 12-15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 199 


mater (Catull. xxxix. 5). Comp. Jer. vi. 26; Amos viii. 10; Zech. xii. 10; 
Prov. iv. 3. 


Sxog THs ToAEws tkavds. Some of this multitude would be hired 
mourners, and musicians with flutes and cymbals. The mother 
would walk in front of the bier, and Jesus would naturally address 
her before touching it. This use of ixayds for “enough and to 
spare, much,” is specially freq. in Lk. (vill. 27, 32, XX. 9, xxi. 38, 
xxiii. 8, 9; Acts Vili. 11, ix. 23, 43, xi. 24, 26, etc.). It is possibly 
colloquial : it occurs in ’Aristoph. Pax 354. See Kennedy, Sources 
of N.T. Grk. p. 79- D here has zoAvs. 

13. kai idav adtqy 6 Kuptos éomayviobn éw airy. The introduc- 
tion of 6 Kvpuos has special point here: it is the Lord of Life meet- 
ing sorrow and death. The expression is characteristic of Lk. 
Comp. xxiv. 34, and see on v.17. Compassion 1s elsewhere men- 
tioned as a moving cause in Christ’s miracles (Mt. xiv. 14, xv. 32, 
xx. 34; Mk. i. 41, vill. 2). The verb is peculiar to the Synoptists ; 
and, excepting in parables (Lk. x. 33, xv. 20; Mt. xvili. 27), is 
used of no one but Christ. It is followed, as here, by éri ¢. dat. 
Mt. xiv. 14; and by zepi ¢. gen. Mt. ix. 36; but generally by 
ext ¢. acc. (Mt. xv. 32; Mk. vi. 34, Viil. 2, ix. 22). 

Mi) KAate. “Do not go on weeping, cease to weep”: comp. 
ver. 6. He is absolutely sure of the result ; otherwise the command 
would have been unnatural. Quis matrem, nisi mentis inops, in 
Junere nati Flere vetat? 

14. 7Wato tis copod, ot S¢ Bacrdlovtes Ectyocay. Lk. clearly 
intimates that the purpose of the touching was to make the bearers 
stand still. At such solemn times words are avoided, and this 
quiet sign sufficed. Perhaps it also meant that Jesus claimed as 
His own what Death had seized as his prey. Lk. equally clearly 
intimates that the resurrection was caused by Christ’s command. 
This is the case in all three instances of raising the dead (vill. 54; 
Jn. xi. 43). The copés may be either the bier on which the body 
was carried, or the open coffin (probably wicker) in which it was 
laid (Gen. 1. 26; Hdt. i. 68. 3, ii. 78. 1). 


It is worth noting that Sacrdfes, which occurs twenty-seven times in 
N.T. (x. 4, xi. 27, xiv. 27, xxii. 10, etc.), is found only once in LXX. 


coi heyw. “To thee I say, Arise.” To the mother He had said, 
“Weep not.” The cot is emphatic. For this use of Aé€yo, almost 
in the sense of “I command,” comp. Xi. Q, xii. 4, xvi. 9. 

15. dvexd@icev 6 vexpds. The verb occurs only here and Acts 
ix. 40 in N.T.; in both cases of persons restored to life and sitting 
up. Not in LXX. In this intrans. sense it is rare, excepting in i 
medical writers, who often use it of sick persons sitting up in bed 
(Hobart, p. 11). The speaking proved complete restoration. 


‘ 
4 


200 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (VII. 15--17. 


To suggest that the young man was in a trance does not get rid of the 
miracle. How did Jesus know that he was in a trance, and know exactly how 
to rouse him? And can we suppose that this happened on ¢hree different occa- 
sions, even if we could reconcile Christ’s action with a character for truthfulness ? 
Here and in the case of Jairus’ daughter it is the Evangelist who tells us that the 
person was dead ; but Jesus Himself declared that Lazarus was dead (Jn. xi. 14). 
We are told that the symmetry of the three instances is suspicious ; raised from 
the death-bed, raised from the bier, raised from the tomb. But no Evangelist 
gives us the triplet. Lk. is the only writer who records more than one, and the 
two which he records he places in unsymmetrical order, the raising from the bier 
coming before the raising from the death-bed. Strauss has shown how unsatis- 
factory the trance theory is (Zebex Jesu, ed. 1864, p. 469). 


édwxev autév tH pnytpt. The sudden change of nominative 
causes no obscurity. Comp. xiv. 5, xv. 15, xvii. 2, xix. 4; Acts vi. 
6, x. 4. Jesus might have claimed the life which He has restored, 
nam juvenis jam desierat esse matris sue; but compassion for the 
mother again influences Him. Comp. ix. 55; Acts ix. 41; 1 Mac. 
x. 9; I Kings xvii. 23; 2 Kings iv. 36. 

16. "EhaBev 8€ pdBos mévtas. It is natural that this should be 
the first feeling on seeing a corpse reanimated. But a writer of 
fiction would rather have given us the frantic joy of the mother 
and of those who sympathized with her. Comp. i. 65, v. 8, 26, 
viii. 37; Acts ii. 43, xix. 37. See oni. 12, and also Schanz, ad Joc. 

héyovtes Gt. . . Kat St. It is very forced to make 67 in 
both cases argumentative: “Saying, (We praise God) because 

. and because.” It is possible to take the second ort in this 
way; but the common method of making both to be recitative is 
preferable. Both, therefore, are to be omitted in translation, the 
words quoted being in the ovatio recta (Tyn. Cran. Cov. RV.). 
Cases in which 67 may be taken either way are freq. in N.T. 
(i. 45, Ui. 11, iv. 36, Vil. 39, ix. 22, x. 21, xi. 38, xxl. 70; 1 Jn. il 

12-14, etc.) 

*Ereokepato 6 Oeds Tov Nady adtod. Comp. i. 68, 78; Acts xv. 
14; Heb. ii. 6. The verb was specially used of the “visits” of a 
physician. Comp. Mt. xxv. 36, 43; Jas. i. 27; Acts vi. 3, vii. 23, 
xv. 36, the only other passages in N.T. in which the word occurs. 
In the sense of visiting with judgment or punishment it is never 
used in N.T. and but seldom in LXX (Ps. Ixxxviii. 33 ; Jer. ix. 9, 
25, xi. 22, li. 29). After the weary centuries during which no 
Prophet had appeared, it was indeed a proof of Jehovah’s visiting 
His people that one who excelled the greatest Prophets was among 
them. No one in O.T. raised the dead with a word. 

17. €&7Oev 6 Adyos obTos ev SAN TH “lovdaia wept adtou. The 
Adyos is the one just mentioned,—that God had visited His people 
in sending a mighty Prophet. The statement does not imply that 
Lk. supposed Nain to be in Judza. “Iovdaia here probably means 
Palestine: see on iv. 44 and xxii. § But even if we take it in the 


VIL. 17-19.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 201 


narrower sense of Judza as distinct from Galilee, Samaria, and 
Perza, there is no need to attribute to Lk. any geographical in- 
accuracy. “This saying went forth (from Nain and circulated) 
in Judzea”; ze. it reached the headquarters of Christ’s opponents, 
For tepi adrod comp. Vv. 15. 


This pregnant use of a prep. of rest after a verb of motion is perha 
found only in late Grk., for in Thuc. iv. 42, 3 and Xen. He//en, vii. 5. 10 the 
readings vary between dayjecay and dxfcoay. Comp. viii. 7, and see Win. 1 
4 a, Pp. 514. 

kal +don TH Teptxdpw. Note the position of this clause, which 
is added after wep! airod with augmented force: “and (what is 
more) in all the region round about”; ze. round about “Iovdaia, 
not Nain. Comp. Acts xxvi. 23. The verse prepares the way for 
the next incident by showing how the Baptist’s disciples came to 
hear about “all these things.” 


The evidence that Jesus raised the dead is that of all four Gospels and of 
primitive tradition. The fact seems to have been universally believed in the 
early Church (Justin, Afo/. i. 22. 48; Try. Ixix.; Orig. ¢. Cels. ii. 48). 
Quadratus, one of the earliest apologists, who addressed a defence of Christianity 
to Hadrian A.D. 125, says in the only fragment of it which is extant, ‘‘ But the 
works of our Saviour were always present, for they were true; those that were 
healed and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when 
they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present ; and 
not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after His departure, they 
were there for a considerable time, so that some of them lived even to our own 
times” (Eus. H. Z. iv. 3. 2). This does not mean that Quadratus had seen 
any of them, but that there was abundance of opportunity, long after the event, 
to inquire into the reality of these miracles. S. Paul uses the same kind of 
argument respecting the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 5-8). Weiss points 
out how unsatisfactory are all the attempts to explain the evidence on any 
other hypothesis than the historical fact that Jesus raised the dead (Leben Jesu, 
i, pp. 557-565, Eng. tr. ii. 178-186). He concludes thus: ‘‘In no other 
miracle did the grace of God, which appeared in His Messiah, manifest itself so 
gloriously, by overcoming the consequences of sin and thereby giving a pledge 
for the highest consummation of salvation.” See Aug. /z Joh. Trac, xlix. 2, 


18-35. The message from the Baptist to the Christ. Peculiar 
to Lk. and Mt., who place it in different connexions, but assign to 
it the same occasion, viz. that John had “heard in his prison the 
works of the Christ” (Mt. xi. 2). Lk.’s narrative, as usual, is the 
more full. He does not mention that John is in prison, having 
already stated the fact by anticipation (ii. 20). The wepi ravrwv 
tov7wv shows that the works reported to the Baptist include the 
healing of the centurion’s servant and the raising of the widow’s son. 


apos Tov KUptov. This is probably the true reading (B LLRX, a ff Vulg.) 
rather than mpés Tov Incodv (NS AXT, bef). See on ver. 13. 


19. Xd et & Epxdpevos; “ Art Zhou (in emphatic contrast to 
érepov) He that cometh,” ze. whose coming is a matter of quite 
notorious certainty (ili. 16, xiii. 35, xix. 38; Heb. x. 37). 


202 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (vii. 19-2L, 


% Etepov tpoodoxapev; “Or must we look for another, different 
in kind?” whereas aor might be another of the same kind (Lft. 
on Gal. i. 6, 7). The reading érepov (8 BL RX @) is right, and is 
not taken from Mt. It is a\dov (A D) that is the corruption. 
For the delib. subj. comp. iii. 10, 12, 14. See oniii. 15. 

The meaning of the question thus sent to Christ has been 
much discussed. 1. Chrystostom and other Fathers have sug- 
gested that the question was asked for the sake of John’s disciples, 
who needed strengthening or correcting in their beliefs. See 
Oxford Library of the Fathers, x. p. 267, note e. Luther, Calvin, 
Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others adopt this view. But the whole 
context is against it. Christ’s reply is addressed to John, not to 
the disciples; and it is not clear that the disciples even under- 
stood the message which they carried. 2. Weiss and other critics 
follow Tertullian (JZarcion. iv. 18) in contending that John’s own 
faith was failing, because the career of Jesus did not seem to 
correspond with what he and the people had expected, and with 
what he had foretold (iii. 17). There is nothing incredible in this 
view ; but the Baptist had had such a long and stern preparation 
for his work, and had received such convincing evidence that Jesus 
was the Messiah, that a failure in his faith is surprising. 3. Hase 
and others suggest that he was not failing in faith, but in patience. 
John was disappointed that Jesus did not make more progress, 
and he wished to urge Him on to take a more prominent and 
indisputable position. ‘If Thou do these things, manifest Thyself 
unto the world.” Perhaps John was also perplexed by the fact 
that one who could work such miracles did not set His forerunner 
free, nor “cleanse His threshing-floor” of such refuse as Antipas 
and Herodias. This view suits the context better than the second. 
John’s sending to Jesus is strong evidence that he was not seriously 
in doubt as to His Messiahship. For a false Christ would not 
have confessed that he was false; and what proof could the true 
Christ give more convincing than the voice from heaven and the 
visible descent of the Spirit? 4. The view of Strauss, that John 
had just begun to conjecture that Jesus is the Messiah, and that 
therefore this narrative is fatal to the story of his having baptized 
Jesus and proclaimed Him as the Messiah, is answered by 
Hase (Gesch. Jesu, § 39, p. 388, ed. 1891). See also Hahn, 1. 

. 475: 
E on Ocpamevew amo. See on v. 15: it is peculiar to Lk. 

pactiywy. “ Distressing bodily diseases”; Mk. iii. 10, V. 29, 
34. In LXX< it is used of any grievous trouble, but not specially 
of disease: Ps. xxxv. 15, Ixxxvili. 32; Ecclus. xl. 9; 2 Mac. vil. 
37: comp. Hom. JZ. xii. 37, xili. 812; Aesch. Sept. 607; Ag. 642. 
The notion that troubles are Divine chastisements is implied in 
the word. It is used literally Acts xxii. 24 and Heb. xi. 36. 


VIL. 21-24.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 203 


éxapicato. “He graciously bestowed, made a free present 
of”; magnificum verbum (Beng.); comp. 2 Mac. iii. 31. 

22. dmayyethate “lwdver. See on viii. 20. The answer is ex- 
pressly sent to John: there is no intimation that it is for the in- 
struction of his disciples, who are sent back, “like the messenger 
from Gabii to Sextus Tarquinius,” to relate a symbolical narrative, 
which their master is to interpret. That ¢Zey can understand it is 
neither stated nor implied. 

tupdot dvaBhérouow, k.t.4. There is probably a direct reference 
to Is. xxxv. 5, 6, lxi. 1. It is clear, not only that Lk. and Mt. 
understand Jesus to refer to bodily and not spiritual healings, but 
that they are right in doing so. John’s messengers had not “ seen 
and heard” Christ healing the spiritually blind and the morally 
leprous. Moreover, what need to add rrwxoi edayyediCovrar, if all 
that precedes refers to the preaching of the good tidings? It is 
unnatural to express the same fact, first by a series of metaphors, 
and then literally. All the clauses should be taken literally. They 
seem to be arranged in two groups, which are connected by xai, 
and in each group there is a climax, the strongest item of evidence 
being placed last. 

TTwXoi eVayyehtLovrar. This was the clearest sign of His being 
the Christ (Is. Ixi. 1), as He Himself had declared at Nazareth (iv. 
18-21). His miracles need not mean more than that He was “a 
great Prophet”; moreover, the Baptist had already heard of them. 
But it was a new thing that the poor, whom the Greek despised 
and the Roman trampled on, and whom the priest and the Levite 
left on one side, should be invited into the Kingdom of God (vi. 
20). For the passive sense of eiayyedifecfar comp. Heb. iv. 2, 6, 
and see Win. xxxix. I. a, p. 326, and Fritzsche on Mt. vi. 4.. For 
evayéA\ov see on Rom. i. 1. 

23. paxdpios. Not pdxapior, as it would have been if the 
direct reference were to the disciples of John. It implies that 
the Baptist had in some way found an occasion of stumbling in 
Jesus (z.e. he had been wanting in faith, or in trust, or in patience) ; 
and it also encourages him to overcome this temptation. 

cxavdadioq. Only here and xvii. 2 in Lk., but frequent in 
Mt. and Mk. The verb combines the notions of “trip up” and 
“entrap,” and in N.T. is always used in the figurative sense of 
“causing to sin.” See on xvii. 1. This record of a rebuke to the 
Baptist is one of many instances of the candour of the Evangelists. 
For és édv see Greg. Proleg. p. 96, and Win. xli. 6, p. 390; this 
use of édy for dv is common in LXX and N.T. (xvii. 33?; Mt. v. 
19, 32, Xli. 32, xviil. 5 ; Jas. iv. 4). 

24. mepi ‘lodvov. This is further evidence that the question and 
answer just recorded concerned John himself. The people had 
heard Jesus send a rebuke to the Baptist. But He forthwith 


204. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S LUKE [VI¥. 24-97, 


guards them from supposing that John has ceased to be worthy of 
reverence. He waits till his disciples are gone; because if they 
had heard and reported Christ’s praise of John to their master, it 
might have cancelled the effect of the rebuke. This panegyric is 
almost the funeral oration of the Baptist; for soon after this he 
was put to death. For qpgato see on iv. 21. 
Tt é&4\Gare. In each of the three questions it is possible to put the 
note of interrogation defore the infinitive, and render, ‘* Why went ye out? to 


behold?” etc. But the order of the words favours the usual punctuation. 
Perhaps Oedcac@at implies ‘‘ behold” with wonder and admiration. 


kddapov . . . cadeudpevov. The literal meaning makes ex- 
cellent sense: “Did you go out into the wilderness to admire 
what you would certainly find there, but which would have no 
interest or attraction? Or did you go out to see what would no 
doubt have been interesting and attractive, but which you were 
not likely to find there?” But it also makes good sense to in- 
terpret, ‘Had John been a weak and fickle person, you would 
not have made a pilgrimage to see him.” 

25. avOpwrov év pahaxots. Such a person would not be found 
in the wilderness; although he might have attracted them. This 
seems to show that the xaAdpoy is not metaphorical, for this is 
obviously literal. 

ot év inatiopa evddgm Kal tpupf bmdpxovtes. ‘Those who live 
in gorgeous apparel and luxury.” The word iuarirpds is of late 
origin, and is seldom used excepting of costly vesture (ix. 29; 
Acts xx. 33; Jn. xix. 24; 1 Tim. ii. 9; Gen. xxiv. 535) Bxodsar 
22, xii 35; 1 Kings x. 5). See Trench, Syw. 1. For evddé 
comp. xiii. 17, and for émdpxovtes see on viii. 41. In N.T. tpudy 
occurs only here and 2 Pet. ii. 13; in LXX only as v./, Lam. iv. 5. 
But it is freq. in class. Grk. It means an enervating mode of life 
(@pvrroua, “I am broken up and enfeebled ”). 

26. mepicadtepov mpopytov. This completes the climax: xdAa- 
pov, avOpwrov, rpopyrny, Tepiaadtepov Tpopytov. In mepusodrepov 
we have a late equivalent of zAéov. It may be masc. or neut., 
but is probably neut., like wAcfoy in xi. 32. Comp. xii. 4, XX. 47. 
They went out to see something more than a Prophet, and they 
did see it. 

27. This quotation from Malachi (iii. 1) is given by Mk. at the 
opening of his Gospel coupled with wv} Bodrtos, «.7.4., and 
attributed as a whole to Isaiah. Neither Heb. nor LXX has mp6 
mpogémou gov, which Mt. Mk. and Lk. all insert in the first clause. 
See on ix. 52. Moreover, they all three have drooréAAw and 
katagKevacet instead of the efarooréAAw and émBreerar of LXX. 
See on iv. 18. The passage was one of the common-places of 
Messianic prophecy, and had been stereotyped in ar independent 
Greek form before the Evangelists made use of it. 


VII. 28.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 205 


28. év yevyntots yuvorxdy. A solemn periphrasis for the whole 
human race; that it implies weakness and frailty is not evident: 
in Job xiv. 1 these qualities are expressed. It is human generation 
as distinct from heavenly regeneration that is meant. John’s 
superiority lay, not in his personal character, but in his office and 
mission: the glory of being the immediate forerunner of the 
Messiah was unique. He was a Prophet, like Moses and Elijah ; 
yet he not only prophesied, but saw and pointed out to others 
Him of whom he prophesied. Lk. omits the Hebrew dunv. 


The word mpo¢7rns is an interpolation. The external evidence against 
it is immense (§ BK LM X& and most Versions), and it is improbable that 
the possibility of Prophets outside Israel would be indicated. 


6 8é puxpdtepos. There is no need to make this a superlative, 
as AV. alone among English Versions: better, “he that is in- 
ferior,” i.e. less than other members of the Kingdom, less than 
any among the more insignificant. It is most unnatural to explain 
6 puxporepos of Christ. Chrysostom says, mepl éavrov A€ywv cixoTws 
KpUTrTeL 76 mpocwmov ova THY ert KpaTovcav brovo.ay Kal Oud me) py 
ddan rept eavrod peya, Tu Aéyew (Hom. XXXVii. P. 417); and above 
he explains puxpétepos as kata THV aA tKuay kal Kata THY TOV 7oAAGV 
dd£av (p. 416). Much the same view is taken by Hilary, Theophy- 
lact, Erasmus, Luther, Fritzsche, and others. In that case ev rH 
BactAcia tod @eod must be taken after peflwv, which is awkward ; 
and we can hardly suppose that Jesus would have so perplexed 
the people as to affirm that He was inferior to the Baptist, who in 
all his teaching had enthusiastically maintained the contrary (iii. 
16; Mt. ili. 11; Mk. 1.7; Jn. i. 15, 20, 27, 30, ili. 28-30). By 
his office John belonged to the old dispensation ; he was its last 
and highest product (major propheta, quia finis prophetarum), but 
he belonged to the era of preparation. In spiritual privileges, in 
grace, and in knowledge any even of the humbler members of the 
Kingdom are superior to him. He is a servant, they are sons; he 
is the friend of the Bridegroom, they are His spouse. It is 
possible to understand “Iwdvov after puxpérepos, but it is unnecessary: 
more probably the comparative refers to others in the Kingdom. 
The paradox, “ He that is less than John is greater than John,” is 
capable of interpretation ; but the principle that the lower mem ee 
of a higher class are above the highest member of a lower class is 
simpler. The superlative of pxpds does not occur in N.T. 

29, 30. Many have supposed that these two verses are a 
parenthetical remark of the Evangelist. But a comment inserted 
in the middle of Christ’s words, and with no indication that it is 
a comment, is without a parallel and improbable. Jn. iii. 16-21 
and 31-36 are not parallel. ‘There the question is whether com- 
ment is added. In both passages it is probable that there is no 


206 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIL 28-31 


comment. But, assuming that the Evangelist is in both cases 
commenting, he aggends his comment: he does not zz#ser¢ it into 
the utterances of others. Here vy. 29 and 30 are part of Christ’s 
address, who contrasts the effect which John’s preaching had 
upon the people and upon the hierarchy (see Schanz). The con-. 
nexion between ver. 30 and ver. 31 is close, as is shown by the ov. 

29. mas 6 habs dkotcas. “ All the people, when they heard” the 
preaching of the Baptist. Note the 74s, and see small print on i. 66. 

edikalwoay Tov Oedv, BamticOévtes. “ Admitted the righteous- 
ness of God (in making these claims upon them and granting them 
these opportunities) 4y being baptized.” Their accepting baptism 
was an acknowledgment of His justice. See on ver. 35, and the 
detached note on ¢he word Sixavos and tts cognates, Rom. i. 17. 

30. ot voutxot. Lk. often uses this expression instead of of 
ypappareis, which might be misleading to Gentile readers (x. 25, 
xi. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3). Elsewhere in N.T. the word occurs only 
Mt. xxii. 35; Tit. ill. 9, 13. Comp. 4 Mac. v. 4; Corp. Lnscr. 
2787, 8. 

thy Bouhhy Tod Ocod HOétHoav eis Eautovs. “They frustrated 
the counsel of God concerning themselves”: comp. «cis jas in 
1 Thes. v. 18. The rendering, ‘‘for themselves, so far as ‘they 
were concerned, they rendered the counsel of God effectless,” 
would require 16 eis éavrovs. The verb is a strong one: “render 
aferov, placeless, inefficacious” (Gal. ii. 21, iii. 15; Jn. xii. 48; Lk. 
x. 16). Free will enables each man to annul God’s purpose for 
his salvation. The phrase thy Boudkhvy tod Geos is peculiar to Lk. 
in N.T. (Acts xii; 36, xx. 27; comp. il. 23, iv. 28). It occurs 
Wisd. vi. 4; comp. Ps. xxxli 11, cvl. 11; Prov. xix. 21. With pi 
Bamriocbévtes comp. the case of Nicodemus (Jn. iii. 4, 5). 


31. The spurious reading ele 5¢ 6 Kupios was interpolated at the be- 
ginning of this verse to mark wv. 29, 30 as a parenthetical remark of the 
Evangelist. Owing to the influence of the Vulgate the interpolation was 
followed by all English Versions prior to RV. Almost all MSS. and ancient 
versions omit the words. But their spuriousness must not be quoted as 
evidence against the view which they support. Many false readings are 
correct glosses upon the true text, although that is probably not the case 
here. 


Tive ody dpordcw, The ody would not be very intelligible if 
vv. 29, 30 were omitted; but after ver. 30 it is quite in place. 
“Seeing that the rulers and teachers have rejected the Divine in- 
vitation given by John, and that ye (Aéyere, ver. 34) follow them 
in refusing to follow Me, to what, then, shall I liken the people of 
this generation?” So comprehensive a phrase as tods dvOpdrrous 
THs yeveds tavTns may include the Baptist and the Christ: and 
to assume that it does include them frees the true interpretation 
of the parable from seeming to be somewhat at variance with the 


VII. 31-33.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 207 


opening words. With the double question comp. xiii. 18; Mk. 
iv. 30. 

39, There are two parties of children. This is more clearly 
marked by rots érépos in Mt. than by dAAyAos here. Which of 
the two groups is blamed? It has been taken both ways. (1) The 
children who invite the second group to play, first at dances and 
then at dirges, represent Jesus and the Baptist with their respective 
followers. The children who waywardly refuse to join in any kind 
of game are the Jews as represented by the hierarchy and the 
majority of the people. These rejected both the asceticism of 
John and the joyous freedom of the Gospel. Godet infers from 
dAAnAos that the two groups of children change sides and take 
turns in- proposing the form of play. But it is not necessary to 
give so much meaning to dAAjAos. Yet such a change would 
not be difficult to interpret. The Jews may have proposed to the 
Baptist to become less stern. They certainly tried to force fast- 
ing on Jesus. And hence (2) the possibility of the other inter- 
pretation, which is preferred by Euthymius, Stier, and Alford, and 
is ably defended by Trench (Studies in the Gospels, pp. 150-153). 
The children sitting in the market-place and finding fault with 
their fellows are the Jews. John comes to them in his severity, 
and they want him to play at festivals. When he retains his strict 
mode of life, they complain and say, “We piped to you, and you 
did not dance.” Then Christ comes to them as the bringer of 
joy, and they want Him to play at funerals. When He retains 
His own methods, they say, ‘We wailed, and you did not weep.” 
This interpretation has two advantages. It makes the men of 
this generation, viz. the Jews, to be like the children who cry, “‘ We 
piped,” etc. And it gives the two complaints a chronological 
order. “We piped,” etc., is a complaint against the Baptist, who 
came first ; “‘We wailed,” etc., is a complaint against the Christ, 
who came afterwards. 

With kanpévors comp. v. 273 with dyopd, Mk. vi. 56; with 
Tpoopwvodow aAAyHAors, Acts xxii. 2; with ndAjoaper, 1 Cor. xiv. 7; 
with dpxyjocacbe, 2 Sam. vi. 21; with eOpyvjcaper, Jn. xvi. 20. Of 
these poo dwveir is a favourite word: see onvi. 13. Both Opnvetv 
and k\atew refer to the outward manifestation of grief as distinct 
from the feeling ; and here the outward expression only is needed. 

33. ph Eo0wv dprovy pate mivev oivoy. ‘Without eating bread 
or drinking wine”; spoken from the point of view of these who 
objected to John. He did not take the ordinary food of n.ankind ; 
and so Mt. says, “neither eating nor drinking.” For tne poetic 
form o@w see on x. 7. 

_, Acupdviov éxet, They afterwards said the same of Jesus (Jn. 
Vil. 20, Vill. 48, x. 20); and Saudveov éxets shows that Sarpdvoy 
Is acc. and not nom. Renan compares the Arabic AZedjnoun enté 


208 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIL 83-35 


as showing that Orientals consider all madness to be possession by 
a demon (V/. de //. p. 263). See on iv. 33. One regrets that the 
American Revisers did not carry their point in getting “demon” - 
substituted for “devil” as the rendering of damuoviov. Tyn. Cov. 
and Cran. make great confusion by translating “hath the devil.” 
Wic. is better with “hath a fende.” The Aéyere in vv. 33 and 34 
shows that some of those censured are present. Comp. xi. 15, where 
Jesus is accused of casting out demons with the help of Beelzebub. 
34. ddyos. Like olvorérys, this is a subst. and therefore paroxytone: 
garyés, which L. and S. give, would be an adj. See Chandler, Greek Ac. 
centuation, §215. Latin Versions vary between devorator (Vulg.), vorator (q), 
vorax (ce), manducator (d). English Versions vary between ‘‘ devourer ” 
(Wic.), ‘‘glutton” (Tyn. Cov.), ‘“‘gurmander” (Rhem.), and ‘‘gluttonous 


man” (Cran. AV. RV.). The ref. is to v. 33 and similar occasions. For 
ldos TeAwvGv see V. 27, 29, 30. 


85. kat eBixad0n 4 copia. “And yet wisdom was justified.” 
In N.T. xaé often introduces a contrast, which is placed side by 
side with that with which it is contrasted: “and (instead of what 
might be expected), and yet.” This is specially common in Jn. 
(i. 5, 10, ili. 11, 32, V. 39, 40, Vi. 36, 43, 70, Vii. 28, etc.). Argue 
sometimes has the same force; Cic. De Of. iii. 11. 48. Although 
the Jews as a nation rejected the methods both of John and of 
Christ, yet there were some who could believe that in both these 
methods the Divine wisdom was doing what was right. 
edixars0y. This looks back to édtxafwoay in ver. 29, and q 
sodia looks back to ryv BovAjy tod @cod in ver. 30. Here, as in 
Rom. iii. 4 (Ps. li. 6), ducaudéw means ‘Show or pronounce to be 
righteous, declare or admit to be just.” The analogy of verbs in 
-dw is often wrongly urged. An important distinction is sometimes 
overlooked. In the case of external qualities, such verbs do mean 
to “make or render,” whatever the noun from which they are de- 
rived signifies (épnudw, tuPddw, ypvodw, «.7.r.). But in the case 
of moral qualities this is scarcely possible, and it may be doubted 
whether there is a passage in which d:xadw clearly means “I 
make righteous.” Similarly, dguéw never means “I make worthy,” 
but “I consider worthy, treat as worthy.” In the case of words 
which might apply to either external or moral qualities both mean- 
ings are possible acc. to the context: thus éuo0w may mean 
either “make like,” e.g. make an image like a man (Eur. /e/. 33, 
comp. Acts xiv. 11; Rom. ix. 29), or “consider like, compare” 
(ver. 31, xiii. 18, 20). 
In ¢d:xasé6n we perhaps have an example of what is sometimes called the 
gnomic aorist. Comp. Jn. xv. 6; Jas. 1. II, 24; I Pet. i, 24. Burton, 


8 43. But see Win. xl. b. 1, p. 346, where the existence of this aorist in 
N.T. is denied. 


ad mdvtev tov tékvwv adtis, ‘At the hands of all her chil- 


VII. 35.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 209 


dren”: the justification comes from them. It is certainly incorrect 
to interpret ard as implying rescuing or protecting “from the 
attacks of all her children,” viz. from the Jews. ~The children of 
the Divine Wisdom are the faithful minority who have welcomed 
the Baptist and the Christ, not the unbelieving majority who re- 
jected them. In Mt. xi. 19 there is no wévtwv, and DLMX 
omit it here. But it is certainly genuine: see on vi. 30. InAP#& 
mavrwv is placed last with emphasis: there are no exceptions. 
But the order of & B is to be preferred. Mt. has epywv for réxvwr, 
and x has épywv here. For the personification of the Wisdom of 
God comp. Prov. viii., ix.; Ecclus. xxiv. ; Wisd. vi. 22-ix. 18. 

86-50. §The Anointing by the Woman that was a Sinner. 
Without note of time or express connexion. The connexion 
apparently is that she is an illustration of ver. 35. The proposal 
to identify this anointing with that by Mary of Bethany just before 
the Passion (Mt. xxvi. 6; Mk. xiv. 3; Jn. xii. 3) is ancient, for 
Origen on Mt. xxvi. 6 contends against it; and it still has sup- 
porters. Thus Holtzmann is of opinion that the act of a “clean” 
person in the house of “an unclean” (Simon the leper) has been 
changed by Lk. into the act of an “unclean” person in the house 
of a “clean” (Simon the Pharisee), in order to exhibit the way in 
which Christ welcomed outcasts, a subject which Lk. often makes 
prominent. But the confusion of Mary of Bethany with a 
notorious ayaptwAds by Lk., who knows the character of Mary 
(x. 39, 42), is scarcely credible. And there is nothing improbable 
in two such incidents. Indeed the first might easily suggest the 
second. Simon is one of the commonest of names (there are 
ten or eleven Simons in N.T. and about twenty in Josephus), and 
therefore the identity of name proves nothing. Moreover, there 
are differences of detail, which, if not conclusive, are against the 
identification. The chief objection is the irreconcilable difference 
between Mary of Bethany and the dyaprwdAds. Strauss and Baur 
suggest a confusion with the woman taken in adultery. But the 
narrative betrays no confusion : everything is clear and harmonious. 
The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either 
fiction or clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity towards 
Simon and tender reception of the sinner, are as much beyond the 
reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection. 

On the traditional, but baseless, identification of the woman 
with Mary of Magdala see on viii. 2. The identification of this 
woman with doth Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany is ad- 
vocated by Hengstenberg. His elaborate argument is considered 
a tour de force, but it has not carried conviction with it. The 
potest non eadem esse of Ambrose is altogether an understate- 
ment. It is probably from considerations of delicacy that Luke 
does not name her: or his source may have omitted to do so. 

14 


210 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIL 85-387. 


The leading thought in the narrative is the contrast between 
Pharisees and sinners in their behaviour to Christ. 

36. ‘Hpdta. 8é tis adtév Tay Gapicatwr va ddyy pet adtod. There is 
nothing to show that the Pharisee had any sinister motive in asking 
Him, although he was evidently not very friendly. As the Pharisees 
were generally hostile to Christ, it may have been a courageous 
thing. He is inclined to believe that Jesus may be a Prophet 
(ver. 39); and Jesus rebukes him as one who loved little, not as a 
secret enemy. But, like Herod Antipas, he may simply have been 
curious. Lk. records two other instances of Christ being the 
guest of a Pharisee (xi. 37, xiv. 1).. For tva see on iv. 3, and comp. 
Vi. 31, Vil. 6; and for katendiéy (8 BD LX 2) see on ix. 14. 

87. Kal i800 yuvq ATs Rv. The opening words imply that her 
presence created surprise. The ris is stronger than 4 and has 
point here: ‘ who was of such a character as to be”: comp. viii. 3. 
This is the right order, and év rH méXeu follows, not precedes, #rus 
qv (S BL and most Versions). The exact meaning is not quite 
clear: either, “which was a sinner in the city,” ze. was known as 
such in the place itself; or possibly, “which was in the city, a 
sinner.” The city is probably Capernaum. 

épaptwdés. A person of notoriously bad character, and prob- 
ably a prostitute: comp. Mt. xxi. 32. For instances of this use 
of duaptwAds see Wetst. To the Jews all Gentiles were in a special 
sense dyaptwdol (vi. 32, 33, xxiv. 7; Gal. ii. 15; 1 Mace. ii. 44); 
but something more than this is evidently meant here. -The jv 
need not be pressed to mean, ‘She was even up to this time” 

Alf.) ; nor does accessit ad Dominum immunda, ut rediret munda 
hae imply this. The jv expresses her public character: jv év TH 
woAet. She had repented (perhaps quite recently, and in conse- 
quence of Christ’s teaching); but the general opinion of her ~ 
remained unchanged. Her venturing to enter a Pharisee’s house 
in spite of this shows great courage. In the East at the present 
day the intrusion of uninvited persons is not uncommon (Trench, 
Parables, p. 302 n.; Tristram, Zastern Customs in Bible Lands, 
p- 36). Mary of Bethany was not an intruder. Note the 
idiomatic pres. kataxeitar: just equivalent to our “He is dining 
with me to-day,” meaning that he will do so. 

&\dBactpov pipov. Unguent-boxes or phials were called dAd- 
Bacrtpa even when not made of alabaster. But wnguenta optime 
servantur in alabastris (Plin. WV. AH. xiii. 3, xxxvi. 123 comp. 
Hdt. iii. 20. 1). See Wetst. on Mt. xxvi. 6. 


The word is of all three genders in different writers ; but in class. Grk. 
the sing. is d\dBacrpos, either masc. or fem, The origin of wvpov is unknown, 
pupw, wtppa, onvpva, wvpros being conjectures. In N.T. certainly, and prob- 
ably in LXX also, pvpov, ‘‘ ointment,” is distinguished from &Aatov, “ oil.” 
Trench, Sy. xxxviil. 


VII. 38-40.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 211 


838. otaica dricw apd tods mé8as attod’. The sandals were 
removed at meals, and people reclined with their feet behin¢c 
them; she could therefore easily approach the feet. Whi's Id 
writes rapa Tovs 700as (viii. 35, 41, X. 39, xvil. 16; Acts iv. 35, 
37, V- 2, 10, Vii. 58, xxii. 3), Mk. has zpos rods rddas (v. 22, vii. 25), 
and Jn. eis rots rodas (xi. 32). Mt. has rapa rods rédas (xv. 30). 

tois Sdkpuow jpgato Bpexew Tods mddas attod Kal Tats Oprkiv, 
k.t.\. This was no part of her original plan. She came to anoint 
His feet, and was overcome by her feelings; hence the npégaro. 
The Bpéxew led to the é€uaocer, which was also unpremeditated. 
Among the Jews it was a shameful thing for a woman to let down 
her hair in public; but she makes this sacrifice. For Bpéxew 
comp. Ps. vi. 7: it is probably a vernacular word (Kennedy, 
Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 39). 

kat katedidet. Note the compound verb and the change of 
tense: “She continued to kiss affectionately.” The word is used 
of the kiss of the traitor (Mt. xxvi. 49; Mk. xiv. 45), which was 
demonstrative, of the prodigal’s father (Lk. xv. 20), and of the 
Ephesian elders in their last farewell (Acts xx. 37), and nowhere 
else in N.T. Comp. Xen. AZem. ii. 6. 33. Kissing the feet was a 
common mark of deep reverence, especially to leading Rabbis 
(Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 32; Polyb. xv. 1. 7; Aristoph. Vesp. 608). 

89. mpopytys. Referring to the popular estimate of Jesus 
(vv. 16, 17). The otros is contemptuous. No true Prophet would 
knowingly allow himself to be rendered unclean by contact with 
such a person. The reading 6 zpopyrys (BZ) would mean “ the 
great Prophet” of Deut. xvili. 15 (comp. Jn. i. 25, vii. 40), or 
possibly “the Prophet that He professes to be.” The art. is 
accepted by Weiss, bracketed by WH.., put in the margin by Treg., 
and rejected by Tisch. 

tis Kal ToTAT) H yuvy ATLs Gmtetar adtod. ‘Who and of what 
character is the woman who is clinging to Him.” She was notori- 
ous both in person and in life. See oni. 29. The a&mrera: implies 
more than mere touching, and is the pres. of continued action. 
Trench, Syz. xvii.; Lft. on Col. ii. 21. mo si tu, Simon, scires, 
qualis hee jam esset femina, aliter judicares (Beng.). The or 
comes after éyivwoxev: ‘that she is,” not “ decause she is.” See on 
ver. 16, and comp. Is. Ixv. 5. 

40. dmoxpibeis 6 “Inoots. Audivit Phariseum cogitantem (Aug. 
Serm. xcix.). Jesus not only answered but confuted his doubts. 
Simon questioned the mission of Jesus because He seemed to be 
unable to read the woman’s character. Jesus shows Simon that 
He can read As inmost thoughts: He knows tis kat rortards éort. 
For éx@ gol 1 eimety see on xii. 4. Christ asks permission of His 
host to speak. As Godet remarks, there is a tone of Socratic irony 
in the address. ‘The historic present (pyowv) is very rare in Lk. 


212 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI 41-44, 


41. Avo xpeopidérat qoav Saviety tuvt. For the orthography of the two 
substantives see WH. ii. App. p. 1543; Greg. Proleg. p. 89. In N.T. 
xpeopudérns occurs only here and xvi. 5 ; in LXX Job xxxi. 37; Prov. xxix. 13. 
The word is of late origin. All English Versions, except Rhem. and AV., 
rightly have ‘‘lender” and not ‘‘ creditor” for davworjs: Vulg. fenerator, 
Luth. Wucherer. In weight of silver the dezarzus was considerably less than 
a shilling ; in purchasing power it was about two shillings, the wage of a day- 
labourer (Mt. xx. 2) and of a Roman soldier (Tac. Az. i. 17. 8, where see 
Furneaux). The two debts were about £50 and £5. 


42. pi éxovtwv adtav dmododvar. ‘ Because they had not where- 
with to pay”; non habentibus tllis unde redderent (Vulg.). Comp. 
xll. 4, Xlv. 14; Acts iv. 14. Others render éyev in these passages 
“to be able,” like Zabeo guod with the subjunctive. In éxapicato, 
“he made them a present” of what they owed, we trace the Pauline 
doctrine of free grace and salvation for all. Comp. ver. 21. 

tls odv adtav mAelov dyamyjoet; This is the point of the parable, 
and perhaps the only point. The love and gratitude of those who 
have had debts remitted to them depends upon ¢hezr estimate of 
the amount which has been remitted to them rather than upon the 
actual amount. 

43. ‘YrohapBdvw. “I suppose,” “I presume,” with an air of 
supercilious indifference. Comp. Acts il. 15; Job xxv. 3; Tobit 
vi. 18; Wisd. xvii. 2. It is very improbable that troAapBdvw here 
means “TI reply,” as in x. 30; Job ii. 4, iv. 1, Vi aye ees 
In N.T. it is almost peculiar to Lk. The *Op0ds éxpwwags may be 
compared with the wdvv ép@as of Socrates, when he has led the 
disputant into an admission which is fatal. In N.T. 6p6és occurs 
only here, x. 28, xx. 21; Mk. vii. 35. Freq. in LXX. Comp. otx 
éxpivare 6p0ads (Wisd. vi. 4). 

44, otpadhels mpds Thy yuvaika. She was behind Him. His 
turning to her while He spoke to Simon was in itself half a rebuke. 
Up to this He seems to have treated her as He treated the 
Syrophenician woman, as if paying no attention. The series of 
contrasts produces a parallelism akin to Hebrew poetry, and in 
iranslating a rhythm comes almost spontaneously. 

Bhérrets TavTHY Thy yuvatka; This is probably a question: Simon 
had ignored her presence. The oou being placed before eis thy 
oixiay gives point to the rebuke, but it hardly makes the cov em- 
phatic. An enclitic cannot be emphatic, and cov here is enclitic. 
The meaning is not “I entered into ¢hime house,” in preference 
to others; but rather, “I came to thee in thy house,” and not 
merely in the public street ; “‘I was thy invited guest.” 

GSwp por emt é8as. Comp. Gen. xviii. 4; Judg. xix. 21; 1 Sam. 
XxY. 41; Jn. xii. 5; 1 Tim. v. 10. The reading is somewhat un- 
certain, and there are many variations between pou and pov, 1édas 
and rovs wédas, and also of order: pov émi tovs 7édas (XL) may 
be right. 


VIr. 45-47.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 213 


45. pihnpa. Comp. Gen. xxxili. 4; Exod. xviii. 7; 2 Sam. 
XV. 5, xix. 39, xx. 9. The traitor’s choosing it as a sign seems to 
mark it as usual. 

ad jis cio Oov. The reading cionAGev (L} Vulg.) is an attempt 
to avoid the apparent exaggeration in “since the time I came in.” 
But there need be no exaggeration, or difference of meaning, be- 
tween the two readings. The woman very likely entered with 
Christ and His disciples in order to escape expulsion. Fear of it 
would make her begin to execute her errand directly the guests 
were placed. The compound katagidotca makes the contrast with 
piAnpa more marked, and rots zédas makes it still moreso. The 
piAnua would have been on the cheek, or possibly (if Simon had 
wished to be very respectful) on the hand. 

46. é\aiw. Very cheap in Palestine, where olives abound, and 
very commonly used (Ps. xxiii. 5, cxli. 5; Mt. vi. 17). The pvpov 
would be more valuable, and possibly very costly (Jn. xii. 3, 5). 
This woman, whom Simon so despised in his heart, had really 
done the honours of the house to his guest. This fact would be 
all the more prominent if she entered close after Jesus, and thus 
at once supplied Simon’s lack of courtesy. 

47. This is a verse which has been the subject of much contro- 
versy. What is the meaning of the first half of it? We have to 
choose between two possible interpretations. 1. ‘For which 
reason, I say to thee, her many sins have been forgiven, because 
she loved much” ; ze. o6 xdpiv anticipates 6m, and héyw oor is paren- 
thetical. Her sins have been forgiven for the reason that her love 
was great; or her love won forgiveness. This is the interpretation 
of Roman Catholic commentators (see Schanz), and the doctrine 
of contritio caritate formata is built upon it. But it is quite at 
variance (a) with the parable which precedes ; (4) with the second 
half of the verse, which ought in that case to run, “but he who 
loveth little, wins little forgiveness” ; (¢) with ver. 50, which states 
that it was fa7th, not love, which had been the means of salvation ; 
a doctrine which runs through the whole of the N.T. This cannot 
be correct. 2. “For which reason I say to thee, her many sins 
have been forgiven (and I say this to thee), because she loved 
much” ; z.e. A€yw cor is not parenthetical, but is the main sentence. 
This statement, that her many sins have been forgiven, is rightly 
made to Simon, because he knew of her great sinfulness, he had 
witnessed her loving reverence, and he had admitted the principle 
that the forgiveness of much produces much love. This interpreta- 
tion is quite in harmony with the parable, with the second half of 
the verse, and with ver. 50. There were two things evident,—the 
past sin and the present love,—both of them great. A third might 
be known, because (according to the principle just admitted) it 
explained how great love could follow great sin—the forgiveness 


214 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |[VII. 47-50, 


of the sin. Remissio peccatorum, Simoni non cogitata, probata a 
Jructu, qui est evidens, guum illa sit occulta (Beng). 

ai Gpaptiat adrijs at moAAai. ‘The second art. refers to v. 39: 
“The many sins of which thou thinkest. ” “Her sins, yes (accord- 
ing to thy estimate), her many sins.’ 

@ 8é ddiyov ddietat. ‘ But he to whom little is forgiven,” ze. who 
thinks that he has committed little which could need forgiveness. 
It is said with evident reference to Simon. O Pharisxe, parum 
diligts, guia parum tibt dimitt suspicaris ; non quia parum dimtt- 
titur, sed quia parum putas quod dimittitur (Aug. Serm. xcix.). For 
this use of the dat. comp. Soph. Azz. go4. 

48. ciwey 8é adtH. What He had to say to Simon (ver. 40) is 
finished: it is His true entertainer (44-46) who now occupies His 
attention. 

dpéwvtar. ‘‘ Have been and remain forgiven”: see on Vv. 20. 
There is nothing either in the word or in the context to show that 
her sins were not forgiven until this moment: the context implies 
the opposite, and this is confirmed by the use of the perf. Augus- 
tine’s accessit ad Dominum immunda, ut rediret munda is in this 
respect misleading. The teaching of Christ had brought her to 
repentance and to assurance of forgiveness, and this assurance had 
inspired her with love and gratitude. Jesus now confirms her 
assurance and publicly declares her forgiveness. He thus lends 
His authority to rehabilitate her with society. 

49. héyew év éautois. “To say within themselves” rather than 
among themselves; so that Jesus answered their thoughts, as He 
had already answered Simon’s. The ofros is slightly contemptu- 
ous, as often (v. 21; Mt. xiii. 55; Jn. vi. 42, 52, etc.). The kat 
in ds Kal dpaptias ddinow is “even” rather than “also.” It is 
difficult to see the point of “also.” 

50. eimev S€ mpds Thy yuvaika. “ But He said unto the woman.” 
He ignored their objection, and yet indirectly answered it, by telling 
her that it was her faith that had delivered her from her sins. 

mopevou eis eipyyyv. ‘Depart into peace,” z.e. into a lasting 
condition of peace: a Hebrew formula of blessing and of good- 
will, with special fulness of meaning. Comp. viii. 48; Mk. v. 34; 
1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42. In Acts xvi. 36 and Jas. ii. 16 we have é 
eipyvn, which is less strong, the peace being joined to the moment 
of departure rather than to the subsequent life: comp. Judg. 
xviii. 6. In Acts xv. 33 we have per ecipyvys. 

Among the various points which distinguish this anointing from that by Mary 
of Bethany should be noted that 4eve we have no grumbling at the waste of the 
ointment and no prediction of Christ’s death, while ¢here no absolution is bee 


nounced and Mary is not addressed. See Hase, Gesch. J. § 91, p. 651, ed. 
1891 ; also Schanz, p. 250, at the end of this section. 


VIII. 1-3. § The ministering Women. This section is 


VII. 1,2.) | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 7205 


evidence of the excellence of Lk.’s sources. The information 
contained in it is exact and minute. The names and other details 
are utterly unlike fiction. An inventor would avoid such things 
as likely to be refuted: moreover, no motive for invention can be 
discerned. The passage tells us—what no other Evangelist 
makes known—how Jesus and His disciples lived when they 
were not being entertained by hospitable persons. The common 
purse (Jn. xili. 29; comp. xii. 6) was kept supplied by the 
generosity of pious women. This form of piety was not rare. 
Women sometimes contributed largely towards the support of 
Rabbis, whose rapacity in accepting what could ill be spared was 
rebuked by Christ (xx. 47; Mt. xxiii. 13; Mk. xii. 40) with great 
severity. 

1. Kat éyéveto év 76 xalegijs Kal adtis Siddevev, See detached 
note p. 45, and comp. v. 1, 12, 14: for év 7@ KaQegijs see small 
print on vii. 11. The airds anticipates xal of dudexa, “ He Himself 
and the Twelve.” But the xai before airds comes after éyévero 
and must not be coupled with the xaé before oi dédexa. In N.T. 
Stodedw occurs only here and Acts xvii. 1, but it is freq. in LXX 
(Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 17, etc.) ; also in Polyb. Plut. etc. Comp. ix. 6, 
xiii. 22. 

kata Tod Kat Kata Kdpny. Ve quis Judeus preteritum se quert 
posset (Grotius), Jesus preached city by city (Acts xv. 21) and 
village by village. The clause is amphibolous. It probably is 
meant to go with diddeve, but may be taken with xypicowv kal 
evayy. The incidental way in which the severity of Christ’s 
labours is mentioned is remarkable. Comp. ix. 58, xiii. 22; Mt. 
ix. 35; Mk. vi. 31. For evdayyedufdpevos see on ii. 10. We are 
not to understand that the Twelve preached in His presence, if at 
all. Note the ovyv (not perd), and see on vv. 38, 51, and i. 56. 

2. mvedpatav movnpav. See on iv. 33. We cannot tell how 
many of these women had been freed from demons: perhaps only 
Mary Magdalen, the others having been cured dwé doGevacdv. For 
the dé comp. v. 15, Vii. 21. 

i Kadoupévn Maydahynvy. See on vi. 15. The adj. probably 
means “‘ of Magdala,” a town which is not named in N.T.; for the 
true reading in Mt. xv. 39 is “ Magadan.” ‘“‘ Magdala is only the 
Greek form of Migdol, or watch-tower, one of the many places of 
the name in Palestine” (Tristram, Bible Places, p. 260); and it is 
probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now 
bear the name of A/ejde/, near the centre of the western shore of 
she lake. Magdala was probably near to Magadan, and being 
much better known through 4 Maydadnv7, at last it drove the 
latter name out of the common text. See Stanley, Six. & Pal. 
p. 382. Mary being a common name, the addition of something 
distinctive was convenient ; and possibly a distinction from Mary 


216 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [VIIL 2, 8. 


of Bethany was specially designed by the Evangelists. Mary 
Magdalen is commonly placed first when she is mentioned with 
other women (Mt. xxvii. 56, 61, xxviii. 1; Mk. xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1; 
Lk. xxiv. 10). Jn. xix. 25 is an exception. See on i. 36. 

ap’ Fs Saypdva ewra efeAndUOer. This fact is mentioned in the 
disputed verses at the end of Mk. (xvi. 9). It indicates a pos- 
session of extracrdinary malignity (Mk. v. 9). We need not give 
any mystical interpretation to the number seven: comp. xi. 26; 
Mt. xil. 25. There is nothing to show that demoniacs generally, 
or Mary in particular, had lived specially vicious lives: and the 
fact that no name is given to the dyuaprwAds in the preceding 
section, while Mary Magdalen is introduced here as an entirely 
new person, is against the traditional identification of the two. 
Moreover, such an affliction as virulent demoniacal possession 
would be almost incompatible with the miserable trade of prosti- 
tution. If Lk. had wished to intimate that the duaprwAds is Mary 
Magdalen, he could have done it much more clearly. Had he 
wished to conceal the fact, he would not have placed these two 
sections in juxtaposition. Had he wished to withhold the name 
of the duaptwdos, who may possibly be included among the €repat 
modAal, he would have done as he has done. The dyaptwAds and 
Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany are three distinct persons. 

8. *lwdéva. She is mentioned with Mary Magdalen again 
xxiv. 10: all that we know about her is contained in these two 
passages. Godet conjectures that Chuza is the BaciAuxds, who 
“believed and his whole house” (Jn. iv. 46-53). In that case her 
husband would be likely to let her go and minister to Christ. The 
Herod meant is probably Antipas, and his énitpowos would be the 
manager of his household and estates: comp. Mt. xx. 8. Blunt 
finds here a coincidence with Mt. xiv. 2; Herod “said to his 
servants, This is John the Baptist.” If Herod’s steward’s wife was 
Christ’s disciple, He would often be spoken of among the servants 
at the court; and Herod addresses them, because they were 
familiar with the subject. Comp. the case of Manaen (Acts xiii. 1), 
Herod’s cvvrpodos (Undesigned Coincidences, Pt. IV. xi. p. 263, 
8th ed.). Of Susanna nothing else is known, nor of the other 
women, unless Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and Salome 
(Mk. xv. 40) may be assumed to be among them. 

aituves Sunkdvouy adtots. ‘ Who were of such a character as to 
minister to them”; ze. they were persons of substance. For #t¢ 
see on vii. 37, and for S:axovetv comp. Rom. xv. 25. The adrots 
means Jesus and the Twelve, the reading airé (A L M X) being 
probably a correction from Mt. xxvii. 55; Mk. xv. 41. But atrois 
has special point. It was precisely because Jesus now had twelve 
icciples who always accompanied Him, that there was need of 
» «cli Support from other discap._ 


VIII. 3, 4.]} THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 217 


ek tov Srapydvtwy adtais. It is this which distinguishes this 
passage from Mt. xxvii. 55 and Mk. xv. 41. There the diaxovely 
might refer to mere attendance on Him. We learn from this that 
neither Jesus nor the Twelve wrought miracles for their own 
support. 
Ilere, as in xii. 15 and Acts iv. 32, 74 brdpxovra has the dat. Every- 
where else in Lk. (xi. 21, xii. 33, 44, xiv. 33, xvi. I, xix. 8) and elsewhere 
in N.T. (five times) it has the gen. So also in LXX the gen. is the rule, the 


dat. the exception, if it is the true reading anywhere. Both 7a brdpxovta 
and jadpxecy are favourite expressions with Lk. See on ver. 41. 


4-18. The Parable of the Sower. Mt. xiii, 1-23; Mk. 
iv. 1-20. We have already had several instances of teaching by 
means of parables (v. 36-39, Vi. 39, 41-44, 47-49, Vil. 41, 42); 
but they are brief and incidental. Parables seem now to become 
more common in Christ’s teaching, and also more elaborate. 
This is intelligible, when we remember the characteristics of 
parables. They have the double property of revealing and con- 
cealing. ‘They open the truth, and impress it upon the minds of 
those who are ready to receive it: but they do not instruct, though 
they may impress, the careless (ver. 10). As Bacon says of a 
parable, “it tends to vail, and it tends to illustrate a truth.” As the 
hostility to His teaching increased, Jesus would be likely to make 
more use of parables, which would benefit disciples without giving 
opportunity to His enemies. The parable of the Sower is in some 
respects chief among the parables, as Christ Himself seems to 
indicate (Mk. iv. 13). It is one of the two which all three record, 
the other being the Wicked Husbandmen: and it is one of which 
we have Christ’s own interpretation. 

4, Xuvidvtos S€ SxAou Trohdod kal Td KaTa Wédty emTOpEevOpevwr Tr. 
ait. The constr. is uncertain, and we have choice of two ways, 
according as the xat is regarded as simply co-ordinating, or as 
epexegetic. 1. “And when a great multitude was coming 
together, avd they of every city were resorting to Him.” 2. 
“And when a great multitude was coming together, xamely, of 
those who city by city were resorting to Him.” According to 2, 
the multitude consisted wholly of those who were following from 
different towns (ver. 1). As no town is named, there was perhaps 
no crowd from the place itself. In any case the imperf. part. 
should be preserved in translation. It was the growing multitude 
which caused Him to enter into a boat (Mt. xi. 2; Mk. iv. 1). 
See on xi. 29. Except Tit. i. 5, ata 76Acyv is peculiar to Lk. 


The Latin Versions vary greatly: convenzente autem turba magna et 
corum qui ex civitatibus adveniebant dixtt parabolam (a); conveniente autem 
turba multa et qui de singulis civitatibus exibant dixit p. (c) ; congregato 
zatem populo multo et ad ctvitatem iter faciebant ad eum dixit parabolam 
swim ad eos (ai; ruse eutem turba plurima conveniset et de civitatibus pro- 


218 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [VIII 4-7. 


perarent ad eum dixit per simtlitudinem (Vulg.); cum autem turba plurima 
convenisset (svvéhOovtos, D) e¢ de civitatebus advenirent multi dixit per 
stmtlitudinem (Cod. Brix.). 


etmev 81d mapaBodjs. The expression occurs nowhere else. 
Mt. and Mk. write é wapaBodais A€éyew or Aadciv, while Lk. has 
mapaBoArnv eizety or A€yew. See on iv. 23, v. 36, and vi. 39; and 
on the parable itself see Gould on Mk. iv. 1 ff. 

5. e&f\Oev 6 omelpwy. So in all three accounts: “ Ze sower 
went forth.” The force of the article is “he whose business it is 
to sow”: he is the representative of a class who habitually have 
these experiences. Rhem. has’ “Ze sower” in all three places, 
Cran. in Mt. and Mk., Cov. in Mt. For the pres. part. with the 
article used as a substantive comp. Iii. 11, v. 31, Vi. 29, 30, ix. 2, 
11, x. 16, etc. There is solemnity in the repetition, 6 oreipwy tod 
omeipat tov omdpov. The comparison of teaching with sowing is 
frequent in all literature ; but it is possible that Jesus here applies 
what was going on before their eyes. See the vivid description of 
a startling coincidence with the parable in Stanley, Siz. & Fal. 
Pp. 425. 

év 73 ome(pew aitév. “During his sowing, while he sowed”: 
avtév is subj., not obj., and refers to 6 ozefpwy, not tov amdpov. 
See on iil. 21. Note the graphic change of prepositions: rapa 
THv Gdov (ver. 5), ért THv wérpav (ver. 6), év péow (ver. 7), ets THY 
ynv (ver. 8). In this verse Lk. has three features which are 
wanting in Mt. and Mk.: ror o7opov, kat KateratyOn, and rod 
ovpavod. 

Tapa thy 686v. Not “along the way,” but “by the side of the 
way.” It fell on the field, but so close to the road that it was 
trampled on. 


Both Lk. and Mk. here have péy followed by cal: 8 uéy . » . Kal Erepor, 
Comp. Mk. ix. 12. The absence of 6é after uév is freq. in Acts, Pauline 
Epp., and Heb, 


6. énithv wérpay. The rock had a slight covering of soil; and 
hence is called 16 werp&des (Mk.) and ra zerpwdy (Mt.), which does 
not mean “stony ground,” z.e. full of stones, but ‘rocky ground,” 
z.e. with rock appearing at intervals and with “no depth of earth.” 
The thinness of the soil would cause rapid germination and rapid 
withering ; but Lk omits the vapid growth. With pvév comp. Prov. 
xxvi. 9; Exod. x. 5; and (for the constr.) Lk. ii. 4. For ixpdda, 
“moisture,” Mt. and Mk. have fifav. The word occurs Jer. 
xvii. 8; Job xxvi. 14; Jos. Azz. ill. 1. 3; but nowhere else in N.T. 

7. év péow tav dxavOdv. The result of the falling was that it 
was in the midst of the thorns: prep. of rest after a verb of 
motion: comp. vii. 16. Lk. is fond of év péow (ii. 46, x. 3, xxi. 


VIL. 7-10.] § THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 219 


21, xxii. 27, 55, xxiv. 36; Actsi. 15, etc.). Elsewhere it is rare, 
except in Rev. Neither Mt. nor Mk. have it here. 

cuvgueicat. Here only in N.T. In LXX only Wisd. xiii. 13. 
In Plato and Aristotle it is transitive: “cause to grow together.” 
We are to understand that the good seed fell into ground where 
young thorns were growing ; otherwise the growing ‘ogether would 
hardly be possible. Indeed the avé@yoav at dxavOa of Mt. and 
Mk. almost implies that the thorns were not yet visible, when the 
good seed was sown in the midst of them. The éménmgav means 
“choked it off,” so as to exterminate it: comp. the dro in dzo- 
xtetvw. Wic. has “strangliden it”; but that, though sufficient for 
suffocaverunt (Vulg.), does not express the azé. The verb occurs 
only here and ver. 31 in N.T., and in LXX only in Nah. ii. 12 and 
Tobit iii. 8. 

8. eis Thy yh Thy dyaOyv. Not merely upon, but into the soil. 
The double article in all three accounts presents the soil and its 
goodness as two separate ideas: “the ground (that was intended 
for it), the good (ground).” Mt. and Mk. have xadyy. This 
repetition of the article is specially frequent in Jn. Lk. omits the 
sixty- and thirtyfold. Isaac is said to have reaped a hundredfold 
(Gen. xxvi. 12). Hdt. (i. 193. 4) states that in the plain of 
Babylon returns of two hundred- and even three hundredfold, 
were obtained. Strabo (xvi. p. 1054) says much the same, but is 
perhaps only following Hdt. See Wetst. on Mt. xiii. 8 for abundant 
evidence of very large returns. 

6 exov Gta dove dxovérw. This formula occurs in all three. 
Comp. xiv. 353 Mt. xi. 15, xiii. 43. In Rev. we have the sing., 
6 éxwv ovs akovodrw (ii. 7, II, 17, 29, ill. 6, 13; 22). The intro- 
ductory édever, “ He cried aloud,” indicates a raising of the voice, 
and gives a solemnity to this concluding charge. The imperf. 
perhaps means that the charge was repeated. Comp. Ezek. iii. 27 ; 
Hom. //. xv. 129. 

9. tis airy etn 4 mapaBodky. “ What this parable might be in 
meaning.” See small print oni. 29. Mt. says that the disciples 
asked why He spoke to the multitude in parables. Christ answers 
both questions. For émnpdtwr see on iii. 10. 

10. tois 8€ Aormots. “Those who are outside the circle of 
Christ’s disciples” ; éxetvors rots é€w, as Mk. has it. This implies 
that it is disciples generally, and not the Twelve only, who are 
being addressed. Mt. is here the fullest of the three, giving the 
passage from Is. vi. 9, 10 in full. Lk. is very brief. 

iva Bhérovres ph Bhérworv, At first sight it might seem as if 
the tva of Lk. and Mk. was very different from the ére of Mt. 
But the principle that he who hath shall receive more, while he 
who hath not shall be deprived of what he seemeth to have, 
explains both the fva and the 67. Jesus speaks in parables, 


220 THE GOSPEJ, ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ VIII. 10-12, 


because the multitude see without seeing and hear without hearing. 
But He also speaks in parables 7” order that they may see without 
seeing and hear without hearing. They “have not” a mind to 
welcome instruction, and therefore they are taught in a way which 
deprives them of instruction, although it is full of meaning to those 
who desire to understand and do understand. But what the 
unsympathetic ‘hear without understanding” they rensember, be- 
cause of its impressive form; and whenever their minds become 
fitted for it, its meaning will become manifest to them. 

WH. write cuviwow, from the unused owlw, while other editors prefer 
ouviaow, from ouvlnu or the unused evéw. Similarly WH. have owlovow 
(Mt. xiii. 13), where others give cumodow. II. App. p. 167. Here some 
authorities have cuvGcw, as in LXX, 

11. Having answered the question d.ari év tapaBodais A€yers ; 
Jesus now answers tis éorw atrn 4 tapaBorj; To the disciples 
“who have” the one thing needful “more is given.” The similarity 
between the seed and the word lies specially in the vital power 
which it secretly contains. Comp. ‘Behold I sow My law in 
you, and it shall bring fruit in you, and ye shall be glorified in it 
for ever. But our fathers, which received the law, kept it not, and 
observed not the statutes: and the fruit of the law did not perish, 
neither could it, for it was Thine ; yet they that received it perished, 
because they kept not the thing that was sown in them” (2 Esdr. 
ix. 31-33). 

6 Adyos tod Oeod. Mt. never (?xv. 6) has this phrase ; it occurs 
only once in Mk. (vii. 13) and once in Jn. (x. 35). Lk. has it 
four times in the Gospel (v. 1, viii. 11, 21, xi. 28) and twelve 
times in the Acts. Here Mk. has tov Adyor (iv. 15) and Mt. has 
nothing (xiii. 18). So in ver. 21, where Lk. has roy A. rov @., 
Mk. has 76 6€Anpa Tod @. (iii. 35) and Mt. 7d O&Anpa tod watpds 
(xii. 50). Does it mean “the word which comes from God” or 
“the word which tells of God”? Probably the former. Comp. 
the O.T. formula ‘The word of the Lord came to.” The gen. is 
subjective. Lft. Epp. of S. Paul, p. 15. 

12. ot S€ mapa tiv 686v. There is no need to understand 
orapévres, as is clear from Mk. iv. 15. ‘Those by the wayside” 
is just as intelligible as “Those who received seed by the way- 
side.” 

etta, pyetat 6 SidBodos. Much more vivid than “And the 
birds are the devil.” This is Christ’s own interpretation of the 
birds, and it is strong evidence for the existence of a personal 
devil. Why did not Jesus explain the birds as meaning impersonal 
temptations. He seems pointedly to insist upon a personal ad- 
versary. See onx. 18. Mt. has 6 zovnpés, Mk. 6 caravas. The 
concluding words are peculiar to Lk.: “in order that they may 
not by believing be saved.” Perhaps a sign of Pauline influence. 


VIII. 18-15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 221 


18. The constr. is ambiguous. In vw. 12, 14, 15 eloly is expressed, and 
it is usually understood here: ‘‘ And those on the rock ave they which, when 
they have heard, receive the word with joy ; avd these have no root.” But it 
is not necessary to insert the elclyv, We may continue the protasis to rov 
Aéyov and make «al mean also: ‘‘ And those on the rock, which, when they 
have heard, receive the word with joy,—these also (as well as those by the 
wayside) have no root.” Thus odra éxovoww exactly corresponds to oirol 
elow in vv. 14, 15. But the usual arrangement is better. The of rpds kacpov 
miorevovow is a further explanation of otro. Neither Mt. nor Mk. has 
déxovrat, of which Lk. is fond (ii. 28, ix. 5, 48, 53, x. 8, 10, xvi. 4, 6, 7, 
g, etc.). It implies the internal acceptance; whereas AauPdvew implies no 
more than the external reception. 


év Kaipd Treipacpod apiotavrar. Mt. and Mk. have @diWews 7 
dwyp0v, which shows that the temptation of persecution and ex- 
ternal suffering is specially meant: comp. Jas. i. 2. In all times 
of moral and spiritual revival persons who are won easily at first, 
but apostatize under pressure, are likely to form a large portion : 
comp. Heb. iii. 12. The verb does not occur in Mt. Mk. or Jn. 
The repetition of xa:pds is impressive. As opportunity commonly 
lasts only for a short time, xarpés may mean “a short time.” 


14, 175 88 cis Tas axavOas wévov. It is not probable that this is an acc. 
abs.: ‘‘ Now as regards that which fell among the thorns.” The attraction 
of odro. (for ToOro) to of dxovcarres is quite intelligible. 


ind pepipvav Kal mAovTou Kat HSovav tod Biov. It is usual to take 
this after ovymviyovra:; and this is probably correct: yet Weiss 
would follow Luther and others and join it with ropevopevon, “going 
on their way under the influence of cares,” etc. But ver. 7 is 
against this: the cares, etc., are the thorns, and it is the thorns 
which choke. This does not reduce zopevdmevor to a gehaltloser 
Zusatz. ‘The choking is not a sudden process, like the trampling 
and devouring; nor a rapid process, like the withering: it takes 
time. It is as they go on their way through life, and before they 
have reached the goal, that the choking of the good growth takes 
place. Therefore they never do reach the goal. The transfer of 
what is true of the growing seed to those in whose heart it is sown 
is not difficult; and ovpmviyovrat is clearly passive, not middle 
and transitive. The thorns choke the seed (ver. 7); these hearers 
are choked by the cares, etc. (ver. 14). Here only in N.T. does 
TeXeopopety occur. It is used of animals as well as of plants 
(4 Mac. xiii. 20; Ps. Ixiv. 10, Sym.). 

15. 7d Sé év TH Kadf yf, «7A. It fell zzZo the good ground 
(ver. 8), and it is zz the right ground, Perhaps oites has its full 
meaning: “who are of such a character as to,” etc. The two 
epithets used of the ground, dyay) in ver. 8 and xaAy in ver. 15, 
are combined for xapdia: “in a right and good heart.” We must 
take é€v kapdia with xaréxouot rather than with axovcavres. Even 
if dxovewy be interpreted to mean “hearing gladly, welcoming,” it 


222 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |VIL 15, 16. 


is not the same as xaréyewv, which means “ hold fast” (1 Cor. 
xi. 2). It is reasonable to suppose that axovewy means the same in 
all four cases (12, 13, 14, 15). But xaréyovow (Lk.), rapadexovrat 
(Mk. iv. 20), and ovvusv (Mt. xiii. 23) may all be equivalents of 
the same Aramaic verb, meaning “to take in”: see footnote on 
Ve2t. Comp 1 Cor-xv.2; 1 Phesovs ce 

ev tropors. “With endurance, perseverance,” rather than 
“patience,” which would be paxpoOupia: in patientia (Vulg.), in 
tolerantia (c), in sufferentia (d), per patientiam (bf ff). See Lft. 
on Col. i. 11; Trench, Syz. lili. This irouovy is the opposite of 
adiotavrat (ver. 13); and is not in Mt. or Mk. Thus Lk. gives the 
opposite of all three of the bad classes: xatéxovow, non ut in Via ; 
Kapropopovow, non ut in spinis; &v twopovy, non ut in petroso 
(Beng.). Neither here nor in ver. 8 does Lk. give the degrees of 
fruitfulness. Mt. and Mk. do so both in the parable and in the 
interpretation. The suggestion that Lk. has mistaken three 
numerals for a word which he translates év trouev7} seems to be a 
little too ingenious (Zxfositor, Nov. 1891, p. 381). That Jesus 
knew that all four of the classes noticed in the parable were to be 
found in the audience before Him, is probable enough; but we 
have no means of knowing it. We may safely identify the Eleven 
and the ministering women with the fourth class. Judas is an 
instance of the third. But all are warned that the mere receiving 
of the word is not decisive. Everything depends upon Zow it is 
received and how it is ve¢ained. Grotius quotes from the Magna 
Moralia: © ta ayaa wavta Gvta dyad éorw, Kat trd TovTwY pi) 
SiapGeiperar, ofov bxd wdovrov Kai dpxjs, 6 Towodros Kahds Kal 
ayalds. 

16-18. Practical Inference. The connexion with what pre- 
cedes need not be doubted. By answering the question of the 
disciples (ver. 9) and explaining the parable to them, Jesus had 
kindled a light within them. They must not hide it, but must see 
that it spreads to others. Here we have the opposite of what was 
noticed in the Sermon on the Mount. Here Lk. has, gathered 
into one, sayings which Mt. has, scattered in three different places 
(v. 15, x. 26, xiii. 12: comp. xiii. 12, xxv. 29). Mk. and Lk. are 
here very similar and consecutive. Comp. xi. 33-36. 


16. Adxvov Gipas Kahdmrer adtév oxeder. “ Having lighted a 
lamp,” rather than “a candle.” Trench, Sy. xlvi.; Becker, 
Charicles, iii. 86, Eng. tr. p. 130; Gadlus, ii. 398, Eng. tr. p. 308. 
For épas see on xv. 8: it occurs again xi. 33, but not in the 
parallels Mt. xiii. 15 ; Mk. iv. at. Instead of oxedet Mt. and Mk. 
have the more definite i7é rév pédtoy, which Lk. has xi. 33. As 


VII. 16-18.) THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 223 


Adxvos isa “lamp,” Avxvia is a “lamp-stand,” on which several 
Avxvor might be placed or hung: for, whereas the Aauarrjp was 
fixed, the Avyvos was portable. Other forms of Avxvia are Avxviov 
and dvyvetov (Kennedy, Sources of NV.T. Grk. p. 40). Comp. the 
very similar passage xi. 33. In both passages of ciomopevopevor, 
the Gentiles, are mentioned instead of ot év 77 oixig, the Jews (Mt. 
xili. 15). 

17. The poetic rhythm and parallelism should be noticed. 
Somewhat similar sayings are found in profane writers: dye. dé 
mpos das tiv adyPeav xpdvos (Menander) ; comp. Soph. Ajax, €46, 
and Wetst. on Mt. x. 26. For davepdv yevnoerar see on iv. 36; 
Mt has azoxaAvdbjoetar, Mk. havepwh7j. For daréxpudoy, “ hidden 
away” from the public eye, see Lft. on Col. ii. 3. It was a 
favourite word with the Gnostics to indicate their esoteric books, 
which might not be published. Comp. the very similar passage 
xii. 2; and see S. Cox in the Zxfositor, 2nd series, i. pp. 186, 
372, and Schanz, ad doc. 

18. Bdémete ov mas Gxovete. Because the doctrine received 
must be handed on and made known to all, therefore it is all-im- 
portant that it should be rightly heard, viz. with intelligence and 
a “good heart” (ver. 15). Whoever gives a welcome to the word 
and appropriates it, becomes worthy and capable of receiving 
more. But by not appropriating truth when we recognize it, we 
lose our hold of it, and have less power of recognizing it in the 
future. There is little doubt that 6 Soxet éxeww means “ that which 
he ¢hinketh he hath.” Wic. has ‘‘weneth”; Tyn. and Cran. “ sup- 
poseth”; Coy. and Rhem. “thinketh.” ‘Seemeth” comes from 
Beza’s widetur. It is sedfdeception that is meant. Those who 
received the seed by the wayside were in this condition; they 
failed to appropriate it, and lost it. Comp. xix. 26. 

Mk. here inserts (iv. 24) the @ pérpw perpeire, x.7.A., which 
Lk. has already given in the sermon (vi. 38): and both Mt. and 
Mk. here add other parables, two of which Lk. gives later (xiii. 
18-21). 

as ait The Visit of His Mother and His Brethren. Christ’s 
true Relations. Mt. (xii. 46-50) and Mk. (iii. 31-35) place this 
incident before the parable of the Sower; but none of the three 
state which preceded in order of time. Comp. xi. 27, 28, and 
see on xi. 29. On the “Brethren of the Lord” see Lange, Leben 
Jesu, ii. 2, § 13, Eng. tr. 1. p. 3293 Lft. Galatians, pp. 253-291, 
in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, pp. 3-45, Macmillan, 
1892; J. B. Mayor, Zpzstle of S. James, pp. v-xxxvi, Macmillan, 
1892.1 D.B.? artt. “Brother”; “James”; “ Judas, the Lord’s 
Brother.” 


1 The work as a whole, and the dissertation on this question in particular, 
deserve special commendation. 


224 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII. 19-21. 


19. Mapeyévero S€ mpds attov  pytnp Kal ot adeAdot adrod. 
For the verb, which is a favourite with Lk., see on vii. 4. Here 
Mk. has épxovra: and Mt. idov. In writing the sing. Lk. is think- 
ing only of 4 wjrnp. Such constructions are common, and do 
not imply that the first in the series of nominatives was em- 
phatic or specially prominent, except in the writer's = 
Comp. Jn. xvili. 15, xx. 3; Acts xxvi. 30; Philem. 23. 

The precise relationship to be understood from the expression 
ot dSeApot adtod will probably never be determined or cease to be 
discussed. There is nothing in Scripture to warn us from what is 
the antecedently natural view that they are the children of Joseph 
and Mary, unless “I know not a man” (i. 34) is interpreted as 
implying a vow of perpetual virginity. The “firstborn” in ii. 7 
and the imperfect followed by “till” in Mt. i. 25, seem to imply 
that Joseph and Mary Aad children; which is confirmed by con- 
temporary belief (Mk. vi. 3; Mt. xiii. 55) and by the constant 
attendance of the ddeAgot on the Mother of the Lord (Mt. xii. 
46; Mk. ili. 32; Jn. ii. 12). The Epiphanian theory, which gives 
Joseph children older than Jesus by a former wife, deprives Him 
of His rights as the heir of Joseph and of the house of David. 
It seems to be of apocryphal origin (Gospel according to Peter, or 
Book of James); and, like Jerome’s theory of cousinship, to have 
been invented in the interests of asceticism and of @ priori con- 
victions respecting the perpetual virginity of Mary. Tertullian, 
in dealing with this passage, seems to assume as a matter of 
course that the adeAgoi are the children of Mary, and that she 
and they were here censured by Christ (Marcion. iv. 19; De 
Carne Christi, vii.). He knows nothing of the doctrine of a 
sinless Virgin. Renan conjectures that James, Joses, Simon, 
and Judas were the cousins of Jesus, but that the brethren who 
refused to believe in Him were His real brethren (V. de /. p. 23). 
This solution remains entirely his own, for it creates more diffi- 
culties than it solves. See Lxfositor’s Bible, James and Jude, ch. 
ili., Hodder, 1891. 

guvtuxetv. Elsewhere in bibl. Grk. 2 Mac. viii. 14 only. 


amnyyAn. A favourite word (vz. 34, 36, 47, vii. 18, 22, ix. 36, xiii. 1, 
etc.). Here Mt. has elev 5¢ tts and Mk. has Aéyousw. The deyévTup is 
certainly spurious: om. NBD LA&, Latt. Goth. etc, 


21. pjtnp pou Kat GSehdoi pov. Note the absence of the article 
in all three accounts. This is the predicate, and otro, «.7.A., is 
the subject. And the meaning is not are “My actual mother | or 
brethren,” which would be 4 pajryp pov kal oi ad<cApot pov, but 
“ Mother to Me and brethren to Me,” ze. equal to such, equally 
dear. Mt. and Mk. have the singular here: obros or airds pou 
ddeaAgos Kai ddeaAdi kal pyryp éotiv. We cannot infer from xai 


VOI, 21-23.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 225 


a5<A¢y that His sisters were present: they had settled at Nazareth 
(Mt. xiii. 56; Mk. vi. 3). The texts of Mk. iii. 32, which repre- 
sent the multitude as telling Jesus that His sisters are with His 
Mother and brethren, are probably the result of this inference. 
AD and some : Latin authorities insert ‘‘and Thy sisters”; 
*BCGKL and most Versions omit the words. Christ’s reply 
is not a denial of the claims of family ties, nor does it necessarily 
imply any censure on His Mother and brethren. It asserts that 
there are far stronger and higher claims. Family ties at the best 
are temporal; spiritual ties are eternal. Moreover, the closest 
blood-relationship to the Messiah constitutes no claim to ad- 
mission into the Kingdom of God. No one becomes a child of 
God in virtue of human parentage (Jn. i. 13). Jesus does not 
say marjp pov, not merely because Joseph was not present, but 
because in the spiritual sense that relationship to Christ is filled 
by God alone. See on ver. 11. 

22-25. The Stilling of the Tempest on the Lake of Gennesaret. 
This is the first of a pair of miracles which appear in the same 
order in all three Gospels (Mt. viii. 23 ff.; Mk. iv. 35ff.), the 
second being the healing of the demoniacs in the country of the 
Gadarenes. To these two Mk. and Lk. add the healing of the 
woman with the issue and the raising of the daughter of Jairus, 
which Mt. places somewhat later. The full series gives us a 
group of representative miracles exhibiting Christ’s power over 
the forces of nature and the powers of hell, over disease and over 
death. 

22. “Eyévero Sé ev pd Tay Hpepdv Kat adtés. All these ex- 
pressions are characteristic, and exhibit Aramaic influence. See 
note at the end of ch. i., and comp. v. 1, 12, 17, vi. 12. There is 
nothing like them in Mk. iv. 35 or Mt. vill. 23, and év pig trav 
HeepSv is peculiar to Lk. (v. 17, xx. 1). Comp. & pia trav 
modewv (v. 12) and é&v pid tév ovvaywyédv (xiii. 10). Mt. tells us 
that it was the sight of the multitudes around Him that moved 
Jesus to order a departure to the other side of the lake; and 
Mk. says that the disciples “‘leaving the multitude, take Him with 
them, even as He was in the boat.” This seems to imply that 
He was utterly tired, overcome by the demands which the multi- 
tude made upon Him. For 8:é\@wpev see on ii. 15. ‘The nautical 
expression dvdayeo@ae is freq. in Lk. and peculiar to him (Acts 
Rit0% 3, Xvi. IX, XVI. 21, XX. 3, 13, XX1)2, XXVil. 2, 4, ¥2,°23, XXvill 
10, 11). 

28. whedvrav 8é attav dpinvecey, Excepting Rev. xviii. 17, 
mwXety is peculiar to Lk. (Acts xxi. 3, xxvii. 2, 6, 24). In Anth. 
Fal, 9. 517, &gumvéw means “awaken from sleep.” Here it means 
“fall off to sleep,” a use which seems to be medical and late 
(Heliod. ix. 12). In class. Grk. we should rather have xafurvow 


15 


226 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VII 28-25. 


(Lob. Phryn. p. 224). This is the only passage in which we read 
of Jesus sleeping. 

KatéBy Aaihay dvéuouv. ‘There came down a violent squall of 
wind,” from the heights which surround the lake. These are 
furrowed with ravines like funnels, down which winds rush with 
great velocity. See Thomson, Land & Book, p. 375; Keim, 
iv. p. 179, who quotes Rusegger, Jezsen, ili. p. 136. For dathap 
comp. Job xxi. 18, xxxviil. 1; Wisd. v. 14, 23; Ecclus. xlviii. 93 
Hom. //. xii. 375, xvii. 57. Mt. gives the effect of it as oewrpos 
péyas & tH Gaddooyn. For the accent comp. xadaipoy, KAtpag, 
x.7.., and see Chandler, § 668. 

cuveAnpodvto. The verb occurs only here, ix. 51, and Acts 
ii. 1. Note the imperf. in contrast to xaréBy. The squall came 
down with a single rush; the filling of the boat continued and 
was not completed. What was true of the boat is stated of the 
crew. In class. Grk. the act. is used of manning ships thoroughly 
(Thuc. vi. 50. 2). 

24, *Emortdta, émotdta. See on v. 5. The doubling of the 
name is here peculiar to Lk. Comp. x. 41, xxii. 31; Acts ix. 4, 
xxii, 7, xxvi. 14. Mt. has Kupue, Mk. Arddoxade. Augustine has 
some good remarks as to the differences between the exclama- 
tions attributed to the disciples in the three narratives. ‘There is 
no need to inquire which of these exclamations was really uttered. 
' For whether they uttered some one of these three, or other words 
which no one of the Evangelists has recorded, yet conveying the 
same sense, what does it matter?” (De Cons. Evang. ii. 24, 25). 

emeTipnoev TO dvéuw Kal TH KAS. This does not prove that 
Lk. regarded the storm as a personal agent: both the wind and 
its effect are “rebuked,” a word which represents the disciples’ 
view of the action. See on iv. 39. A kdd8wv («Avfev, “ wash 
against”) is larger than a xtpo (Jas. i. 6; Jon. i. 4, 12; Wisd. 
xiv. 5; 1 Mac. vi. 11; 4 Mac. vii. 5, xv. 31). 

yohynvyn. Mt. and Mk. add peyakyn: the word is common 
elsewhere, but in N.T. occurs only in this narrative. The sudden 
calm in the sea showed the reality of the miracle. Wind may 
cease suddenly, but the water which it has agitated continues to 
work for a long time afterwards. In Mk., as here, the stilling of 
the tempest precedes the rebuke: Mt. transposes the order of the 
two incidents. In both the rebuke is sharper than in Lk., who 
“ever spares the Twelve” (Schanz). See on vi. 13 and xxii. 45. 

25. Mov 7 lots Suav; They might have been sure that the 
Messiah would not perish, and that their prayer for help would be 
answered. It is not their praying for succour that is blamed, but 
their want of faith in the result of their prayer: they feared that their 
prayer would be vain. Comp. His parents’ anguish, and see on ii. 48. 

tig Gpa oitds €or; Mt. has worards. There is nothing in- 


VII. 25.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 227 


credible in the question. Their ideas of the Christ and His 
powers were very imperfect ; and this was probably the first time 
that they had seen Him controlling the forces of nature. Their 
experience as fishermen told them how impossible it was in the 
natural course that such a storm should be followed immediately 
by a great calm. The fear which accompanies this question or 
exclamation is not that which the storm produced, but that which 
was caused by a sudden recognition of the presence of super- 
natural power of a kind that was new to them. Comp. v. 26, 
vii. 16. For the dpa comp. xxii. 23; Acts xii. 18. 


One conjectures that the framer of a legend would have made the disciples 
accept the miracle as a matter of course: comp. v. 8, 9, Keim opposes Strauss 
for rejecting the whole as a myth, although he himself by no means accepts the 
whole as historical. ‘‘ Unquestionably there rests upon this brief and pregnant 
narrative a rare majesty, such as does not reappear in the other nature-miracles. 
With a few masterly strokes there is here sketched a most sublime picture from 
the life of Jesus, and a picture full of truth. . . . Even His rising up against 
weather and sea is told by Mt. and Lk. quite simply, without any ostentation ; 
and the tentative query of the disciples, after their deliverance was accomplished, 
Who is this? is the slightest possible, the only too modest and yet the true 
utterance of the impression which they must at that time have received” (_/es. 
of Naz. iv. p. 180). See Gould on Mk, iv. 41. 


26-39. The Healing of the Demoniac in the Country of the 
Gerasenes. 

Gerasenes seems to be the true reading both here and Mk. v. 1, while 
Gadarenes is best attested Mt. viii. 28; but in all three places the authorities 
vary between Gerasenes, Gadarenes, and Gergesenes. The evidence here is 
thus summarized— 

Tadapnvav, ART AATI etc., Syrr. (Cur-Pesh-Sin-Harcl ¢x#) Goth. 

Tepacnvdy, B C* (ver. 37, 22a¢ ver. 26) D, Latt. Syr-Harcl mg. 

Tepyeonvav, SL XZ minusc. sex, Syr-Hier. Boh. Arm, Aeth. See WH. 

ii. Ap. p. 11. If Lk. viii. 26 stood alone, one might adopt Tepye- 

onvav as possibly correct there; but the evidence in ver. 37 is con- 

clusive against it. 
These Gerasenes are probably not the people of the Gerasa 
which lay on the extreme eastern frontier of Persea, over thirty 
miles from the lake: even in a loose description to foreigners Lk. 
would not be likely to speak of the shore of the lake as in the 
country of these Gerasenes. Rather we may understand the 
town which Thomson rediscovered (Zand & Book, ii. 34-38) 
under the name of Gersa or KXersa on the steep eastern bank. 
Gergesa is merely a conjecture of Origen, adopted upon topo- 
graphical grounds and not upon textual evidence. It may be 
rejected in all three narratives. There is no real difficulty of 
topography, whichever reading be adopted. The expression ri 
xepav trav T. gives considerable latitude, and may include a great 
deal more than the immediate vicinity of the town. Nor is there 
any difficulty in the fact that Mt. knows of two demoniacs, 


228 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII. 26-39 


whereas Lk. and Mk. mention only one. The real difficulties in 
the miracle, for those who believe in the fact of demoniacal 
possession, are connected with the swine. 1. Can beings which 
are purely spiritual enter and influence beings which are purely 
animal? 2. How can we justify the destruction of the swine, 
which were innocent creatures, and which belonged to persons 
who do not seem to have merited such a heavy loss? 

On the first of these two questions our ignorance is so great 
that we do not even know whether there is a difficulty. Who can 
explain how mind acts upon matter, or matter upon mind? Yet 
the fact is as certain, as that mind acts upon mind or that matter 
acts upon matter. There is nothing in experience to forbid us 
from believing that evil spirits could act upon brute beasts; and 
science admits that it has “no @ griori objection to offer” to such 
an hypothesis. And if there is no scientific objection to demoniacal 
possession of brutes, @ fortiori there is none to that of men, 
seeing that men have both bodies and spirits to be influenced. 
The influence may have been analogous to that of mesmerism or 
hypnotism. The real difficulty is the moral one. As Huxley puts 
it, “the wanton destruction of other people’s property is a mis- 
demeanour of evil example.” The answers are very various. 
1. The whole story isa myth. 2. The healing of the demoniacs 
and the repulse of the Healer by the inhabitants are historical, but 
the incident of the swine is a later figment. 3. The demoniacs 
frightened the swine, and the transfer of demons from them to the 
swine was imagined. 4. The drowning of the swine was an 
accident, possibly simultaneous with the healing, and report mixed 
up the two incidents. 5. The demoniacs were mere maniacs, 
whom Jesus cured by humouring their fancies; and His giving 
leave to imaginary demons to enter into the swine, produced the 
story of the disaster to the herd.—All these explanations assume 
that the Gospel narratives are wholly or in part unhistorical. But 
there are other explanations.—6. Like earthquakes, shipwrecks, 
pestilences, and the like, the destruction of the swine is part of the 
mystery of evil, and insoluble. 7. As the Creator of the universe, 
the incarnate Word had the right to do what He pleased with His 
own. 8. A visible effect of the departure of the demons was 
necessary to convince the demoniacs and their neighbours of the 
completeness of the cure. Brutes and private property may be 
sacrificed, where the sanity and lives of persons are concerned. 
9. The keepers of the swine were Jews, who were breaking the 
Jewish law, which was binding on them, and perhaps on the whole 
district. ‘In the enforcement of a law which bound the con- 
science, our Lord had an authority such as does not belong to the 
private individual” (W. E. Gladstone, JVineteenth Century, Feb. 
1891, p. 357). Against this it is contended that the swineherds 


VIII. 26-28.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 229 


were probably pagans, and that the district was not under Jewish 
law (WV. C. Dec. 1890, p. 967; March 1891, p. 455). Certainty is 
not attainable, but it is probable that one of the last two reasons 
is the true explanation. See £xfostfor, 3rd series, 1889, ix. 303. 
Godet’s conclusion seems to be sound, that it is one of those cases 
in which the power to execute the sentence guarantees the right 
of the judge.! Contrast the ‘uealing of a demoniac woman as 
recorded in the Gospel of the Infancy, xiv. 

26. xatém\eucay eis Thy xdpav Tov Tepacnvav Arts éotiv avrizepa. 
“They landed at the country of the Gerasenes, which is in such a 
position as to be opposite Galilee.” The verb is quite class. of 
coming to land from the high seas, 5ut is found here only in N.T. 
Not in LXX. See Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of S. Paul, p. 28, 
and reff. in Wetst. The statement tells us nothing as to the 
position of the country of the Gerasenes, for “opposite” would 
apply to the whole of the east shore. Lk. alone mentions its 
being “opposite Galilee”; perhaps to justify its inclusion in the 
Galilean ministry. 


Some texts have wépay from Mt. or Mk., while others have dvtimépay, of 
which dy7irépa is a later form. Another form is dv7imépas. For the accent 
see Chandler, § 867. 


27. iayvtyncev avyp tis ek THs wéhews. The man belonged to 
the city, but he came out of the tombs to meet Jesus: é« tis 
moAews belongs to avyp zis, not to bryvrycev. For this force of 
izo in composition comp. troxpivomar, “answer back”; trodo- 
yifopa, “reckon fer contra” ; ixoarpédu, “turn back.” For ixave 
see on vii. 12; and for évedtcato see Burton, § 48. Lk. alone 
mentions that the demoniac wore no clothes; but Mk. implies it 
by stating that he was clothed after he was cured. All three 
mention the tombs; and near the ruins of Khersa there are many 
tombs hewn in the rocks. Excepting Mk. v. 3, 5 and Rev. xi. 9, 
prvipa is peculiar to Lk. (xxiii. 53, xxiv. 1; Acts ii. 29, vil. 16); 
but he more often uses pvnwetov. With éuevey comp. xix. 5, xxiv. 29. 

28. Ti épol kal cot; See on iv. 34. 

*Ingod vie Tod Oeod tod Spiorov. This expression rather indicates 
that the man is not a Jew, and therefore is some evidence that the 
owners of the swine were not Jews. “The Most High” (Z/yon) 
is a name for Jehovah which seems to be usual among heathen 
nations. It is employed by Melchisedek, the Canaanite priest and 
king (Gen. xiv. 20, 22). Balaam uses it (Num. xxiv. 16). Micah 
puts it into the mouth of Balaam (vi. 6); Isaiah, into the mouth 
of the king of Babylon (xiv. 14). It is used repeatedly in the 
Babylonian proclamations in Daniel (iii. 26, iv. 24, 32, v. 18, 21, 


1 See some valuable remarks by Sanday in the Contemp. Rev. Sept. 1892, % 
348. He inclines to the second explanation, but with reserve. 


- 


230 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII. 28-80. 


vii. 18, 22, 25, 27). The girl with a spirit of divination at Philippi 
employs it (Acts xvi. 17). It is found in Pheenician inscriptions 
also. See Chadwick, St Mark, p. 144, and Wsctt. on Heb. vii. 1. 
For $wvf peyddn see on i. 42, and for Séopa see on v. 12: with 
dvaxpdéas of demoniac cries comp. iv. 41; Acts viii. 7. 
py pe Bacavions. Neither the verb nor its cognate substantive 
is ever used in N.T. of testing metals, or of obtaining evidence by 
torture, but simply of pain or torment The demoniac identifies 
himself with the demon which controls him, and the torment 
which is feared is manifest from ver. 31. 
29. wapijyyeANev yap tO mvevpart. Authorities are very evenly 
- divided between the imperf. and the aor. If wapzyyyeAev be right, it almost 
means ‘‘ He had ordered.” Burton, § 29, 48. We should have expected rois 
mvevpaow, for both in ver. 27 and ver. 30 we have daruéyvia. But the inter- 
change of personality between the man and the demons is so rapid, that it 
becomes natural to speak of the demons in the sing. Note that while Lk. 
has his characteristic éeAOetv dard (vv. 33, 38, iv. 35, 41, ve. 8, etc.), Mk. 
has the more usual é£e\Oeiy éx. 
mohXots yap xpdévots ovvnptdket avtéy. ‘‘ Many times,” ge. on many 
occasions, mzltzs temporibus (Vulg.), ‘‘it had seized him,” or “‘ carried him 
away”: comp. Acts xxvii. 15. Mk. has wéA\axts. Others explain ‘‘ within 
a long time.” See Win. xxxi. 9, p. 273. The verb is quite class., but in 
N.T. peculiar to Lk. (Acts vi. 12, xix, 28, xxvii. 15). Hobart counts it as 
medical (p. 244). In LXX, Prov. vi. 25; 2 Mac. iii. 27, iv. 41. 


Gdtceow kal méSarcs. Both Lk. and Mk. use these two words 
to distinguish the “handcuffs and fetters,” manice et pedice, with 
which he was bound. See Lft. P%z/. p. 8. The former is used of 
the chain by which the hand of a prisoner was fastened to the 
soldier who had charge of him. Like “chains,” aAvoes are of 
metal, whereas 7éda: might be ropes or withes. Both aAvoes and 
médac are included in 1a deoua. The imperfects tell of what 
usually took place. During the calmer intervals precautions were 
taken to prevent the demons “carrying him away with” them; 
but these precautions always proved futile. 

eis Tas epypous. In order to take the man away from humane 
influences. But the wilderness is regarded as the home of evil 
spirits. See on xi. 24; and for the plural see on i. 80. 

830. Ti cor dvond €or; In order to recall the man to a sense 
of his own independent personality, Jesus asks him his name. It 
was a primary condition of his cure that he should realize that he 
is not identical with the evil powers which control his actions. 
Perhaps also Christ wished the disciples to know the magnitude of 
the evil, that the cure might increase their faith (ver. 25): and this 
purpose may have influenced Him in allowing the destruction of 
the swine. The peculiar word Acyiéy,! which is preserved in Mk. 

1 That the man had ever seen a Roman legion, ‘‘at once one and many, 


crsel and inexorable and strong,” is perhaps not probable. But see Trench, 
Miia les, p. 171, 8th ed. For other Latin words comp. x. 35, xi. 33, xix. 20. 


VII. 30-32. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 231 


v. 9 also, is a mark of authenticity. As Sanday points out, it is 
more probable that this strange introduction of a Latin word 
should represent something which really took place, than that it 
should be pure invention (Contemp. Rev. Sept. 1892, p. 349). 
The words ott eioqev Saipdva toda eis adrdvy are the remark 
of the Evangelist: comp. ii. 50, iii. 15, xxiii. 12. 

81. mapexddouvy aitév. “They kept beseeching Him.” The 
plurality of those who ask is emphatically marked: with damudne 
we might have expected wapexadAe, as in Mk. The plur. would 
have been less noticeable in Mk., because the masc. plur., zoAAoi 
éoev, precedes. 


That rapexddovwy (8 BC DF LS, Latt. Goth.) and not rapexdAe is right 
here, need not be doubted. 


eis Thy GBuocov. In class. Grk. @8vocos is always an adj., 
“bottomless, boundless,” and is mostly poetical In LXX 7% 
aBuooos is used of the sea (Gen. i. 2, vil. 11; Job xli. 22, 23); 
without the art. (Job xxviii. 14, xxxvi. 16; Ecclus. 1 3, xvi. 18) ; 
of the depths of the earth (Ps. lxxi. 20; Deut. viii. 7); but per- 
haps nowhere of Hades. In N.T. it means Hades (Rom. x. 7), 
and esp. the penal part of it which is the abode of demons (Rev. 
ix. I-11, xi. 7, xvii. 8, xx. 1, 3). The latter is the meaning here. 
The demons dread being sent to their place of punishment. See 
Cremer, Zex. sub v. In Mk. the petition is “that He will not 
send them out of the country” ; but the verb is sing. and the man 
is the petitioner. He still confuses himself with the demons, and 
desires to stay where he feels at home. This is their wish and 
his also. The persistent confusion of personality renders it 
necessary that the man should have some decisive evidence of 
the departure of the evil spirits from him. In this way his cure 
will be effected with least suffering, Prof. Marshall thinks that eis 
tHv aBvocov and é£w THs xépas may represent Aramaic expressions 
so nearly alike as readily to be confounded by copyist or trans- 
lator (Expositor, Nov. 1891, p. 377). See footnote on v. 31. 

82. dyé\n xolpwy ixkavay. This illustrates the fondness of Lk. 
for ixavds in this sense: Mt. has ay. xotpwv woAAGv and Mk. dy. 
xofpwv peyaAn. With characteristic love of detail Mk. gives the 
number as @s dicxiAvor, which may be an exaggeration of the 
swineherds or of the owners, who wished to make the most of 
their loss. Had the number been an invention of the narrator, 
we should have had 4000 or 5000 to correspond with the legion. 
It is futile to ask whether each animal was possessed. If some 
of them were set in motion, the rest would follow mechanically. 
For the érérpefey airois of Lk. and Mk. we have the direct 
tmdyere in Mt., which need mean no more than “ depart, be gone.” 
But the distinction between commanding and allowing what He 


232 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII 82-87, 


might have forbidden is not very helpful. Whatever the motive of 
the demons may have been, Jesus uses it for a good end, and 
secures the easy and effectual cure of their victim. 

33. dppnoev 7 dyé\y Kata Tod Kpnyvod. These words also are 
in all three. The word xpyyvés need not mean an abrupt pre- 
cipice: a steep and rocky slope suffices. MacGregor, Stanley, 
Tristram, Wilson, and others believe that the spot which suits the 
description can be identified. The art. implies that it was well 
known. Comp. 2 Chron. xxv. 12. The use of dmemviyn for 
suffocation by drowning i is classical (Dem. p. 883). 

34. 16 yeyovss. Chiefly the destruction of the swine. In ver. 
36 oi iddvres means the disciples and others near to Jesus, not the 
swineherds. 


35-89. Note how the characteristics of Lk.’s diction stand out in these 
verses. For rév dvOpwirov ad’ ob r. 5. €£4XOev (see on ver. 29) Mk. has rév 
Satmovefouevov, and mapa Tovs médas (see on vil. 38) has no equivalent in 
Mk. For dmayyetday (see on ver. 20) Mk. has diyy7jcavro, while dap 
(see on iii. 21), Td TAHOos (see oni. 10), P5Bw weydryw (see oni. 42, vii. 16), 
cuvelxovto (see on iv. 38), and bréctrpewey (see on i. 56) have no 
equivalents. For édetro (see on v. 12) Mk. has wapexdder; for 6 dvnp ag’ 
od é£eAnAVGer (see on ver. 29) Mk. has the less accurate 6 datmovicbels ; for 
avy (see oni. 56) Mk. has werd ; and for vrdorpege (see on i. 56) Mk. has 
Uraye. 


85. twatiopévov. Some of the bystanders may have given him 
clothing ; but there would have been time to fetch ii The verb 
is found neither in LXX nor in profane writers, but only here and 
Mk. v. 15. The mapa tots médas implies an attitude of thankful- 
ness rather than that he has become a disciple. It is the last of 
the four changes that have taken place in the man. He is 
xaOnuevov instead of restless, iuatiopévoy instead of naked, cwdpo- 
voovra instead of raging, and rapa rots rdédas Tod “I. instead of 
shunning human society. Baur would have it that he is meant to 
represent the conversion of the Gentiles. We are not sure that 
he was a Gentile; and this would have been made clear if he was 
intended as a representative. For zapd with the acc. after a verb 
of rest comp. Acts x. 6; Mt. xiii. 1, xx. 30; Mk. v. 21, x. 46. 

836. dmfyyetkav 8€ adtots. This is not a repetition of ver. 34, 
but a statement of additional information which was given to the 
townspeople after they arrived on the scene. 

87. dav 75 whH90s. The desire that He should depart was 
universal, and all three narratives mention it. The people feared 
that His miraculous power might lead to further losses: and this 
feeling was not confined to the inhabitants of the zoAus close at 
hand (ver. 34); it was shared by the whole district. Comp. iv. 29, 
ix. 53, and contrast iv. 42; Jn. iv. 40. Although Keim rejects 
the incident of the swine, yet he rightly contends that. this request 


VIII. 87-89.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 233 


that Jesus should leave the place gives the impression of a sober 
historical fact. There is nothing like it elsewhere in the history 
of Jesus; and neither it nor the locality is likely to have been 
invented. Why should a myth take Jesus across to Gerasa? 
Some historical connexion with the locality is much more 
probable. 

38. éSeito Sé atdtod 6 dvfp. The dé¢ marks the contrast between 
Him and the rest. Mk. says that the request was made as Jesus 
was stepping into the boat. Mt. omits the whole incident. The 
man fears the unfriendly populace, and clings to his preserver. 

89. Sinyod éc0 cor éemoinoev 6 Oeds. In Galilee and Judea, 
where Jesus and His disciples preached, He commonly told those 
who were healed to be silent about their cures. In this half- 
heathen Perzea there were no other missionaries, and the man was 
not fitted for permanent work with Christ elsewhere. Moreover, 
here there was no danger of the miracle being used for political 
purposes. Lastly, it might be beneficial to a healed demoniac to 
have free converse with all after his gloomy isolation. The 6 Oeds 
is last with emphasis. Jesus shows the man that he must attribute 
his deliverance to God. Both Lk. and Mk. preserve the highly 
natural touch that, in spite of this command, the man proclaimed 
what Jesus had done for him. Note also that xu& 6Anv thy woAw 
is much in excess of eis Tov ofkév cov, and kyptcowy of Suyyot. See 
on ix. Io. 

Kal? éAnv thy wéALv. With xypticowr, not with dr7AGev: Win. xlix. d. 
a, p. 499. Mk. has év ry Aexaré\ex. Nowhere else in N.T. does xa@ 
8\nv occur: Lk. commonly writes xa’ Sdn (iv. 14, xxiii. 5; Acts ix. 31, 42, 
x. 37). He nowhere mentions Decapolis. 

40-56. The Healing of the Woman with the Issue and the 
Raising of the Daughter of Jairus. Mt. ix. 18-26; Mk. v. 21-43. 
The name of Bernice (Veronica) for this woman first appears in 
the Acts of Pilate, Gospel of Nicodemus, Pt. I. ch. vii. Respecting 
the statues, which Eusebius saw at Cesarea, and which he believed 
to represent Christ and this woman, see #. £. vii. 18. 1-3. 
Sozomen says that Julian removed the statue of Christ and sub- 
stituted one of himself, which was broken by a thunderbolt (v. 21). 
Philostorgius‘says the same (vii. 3). Malalas gives the petition 
in which the woman asked Herod Antipas to be allowed to erect 
the memorial (Chrvongr. x. 306-8). That the statues existed, and 
that Christians thus misinterpreted their meaning, need not be 
doubted. Pseudo-Ambrosius would ‘have it that the woman was 
Martha the sister of Lazarus. 


40-48. In these verses also the marks of Lk.’s style are very conspicuous 
(see above on vy. 35-39). In ver. 40 we have év 6¢ T@ c. zuin. (see on iii. 21), 
drootpégpery (see on i. 56), awedéfaro (see on ver. 40), foav c. particip, 
(see on i. 10), rdvres (see on ix. 43), and tpocdoxGrres (see on iii. 15). In 


234 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIZ 40-43. 


ver. 41, kal ldo (see on i. 20), kal odros (i. 36), brHpxev (see on ver. 41), _ 
mapa Tovs médas (see on vii. 38). In ver. 42, kal avr (see oni. 17) and év 
dérw c. infin. In ver. 44, Tapaxphua (see on v. 25). In ver. 45, rdyrwy 
(vi. 30, vil. 35) and émcorara (v. 5). Inver. 46, é&ehOetv dé (see on iv. 
35). In ver. 47, danyyetdev (see on ver. 20), évwmcov (see on i. 15), 
wayrTés, Tov Kaod, idAn, and tapaxpjua. Not one of these expressions is 
found in the parallel passages in Mt. and Mk. See on ix. 28-36. 


40. dmeSdfaro. Peculiar to Lk. (ix. 11; Acts ii. 41, xviii. 27, 
xxi. 17, XXIV. 3, xxvili. 30, and possibly xv. 4). The meaning is 
they “received Him with pleasure, welcomed Him” (Euthym. 
Theophyl. Schanz). See on iv. 42 and on xi. 29. In class. Grk. 
the verb means “accept as a teacher, as an authority,” or “admit 
arguments as valid”: so in Xen. Plat. Arist. etc. 

41. “Ideipos. The same name as Jair (Num. xxxii. 41; Judg. 
x. 3). It is strange that the name (= “he will give light”) should 
be used as an argument against the historical character of the 
narrative. It is not very appropriate to the circumstances. 

émfpxev. Very freq. in Lk., esp. in Acts: not in Mt. Mk. or Jn. 
The use of this verb as almost equivalent to efva is the beginning 
of the modern usage. But the classical meaning of a present 
state connected with a previous state still continues in N.T. (ix. 
48, xi. 13, xvi. 14, 23, xxili. 50). See Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 
26. Here also Christ does not refuse the homage (iv. 8), as Peter 
(Acts x. 26) and the Angel (Rev. xix. 10) do. 

42, povoyerms. As in the cases of the widow’s son and the 
lunatic boy (vii. 12, ix. 38), this fact may have influenced Christ. 
On all three occasions Lk. alone mentions the fact. 

étav Sd8exa. A critical time in a girl’s life. Not only Lk, 
who frequently notes such things (ii. 36, 37, 42, iil. 23, xili. 11), 
but Mk. also gives the age. All three mention that the woman 
with the issue had been suffering for twelve years. For amé6vqoxev 
Mk. has éoydrws exer and Mt. apt éreAcvrycer. The reason for 
the difference between Mt. and the others is plain. Lk. and Mk. 
give the arrivals, both of the father, who says, “She is dying,” and 
of the messenger, who says, “She is dead.” Mt. condenses the 
two into one. 

auvérvyov. Mk. has ovvef\rBov, which is less strong: see on 
ver. 14. In both cases the owr- expresses the pressing together all 
round Him. The crowd which had been waiting for Him (ver. 40) 
now clings to Him in the hope of witnessing a miracle. 


48. otoa év pice. ‘Being in a condition of hemorrhage.” The 
constr. is quite simple and intelligible ; comp. év pOopq, év éxaTdcet, Ev O0ry, 
év éxrevelg, év ExOpg. The form pvors is from the unused ftw, from which 
come the late forms éppuca and éppuxa, and pedars is oftenav./. Win. xxix. 

. b, p. 230. 
: cee mpocavaidcaga odov tov Biov. ‘Having, 2% addztion to all 
ker sufferings, spent all her resources on physicians,” or ‘‘ for physicians,” or 


VIII. 43-45.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 235 


‘in physicians.” This use of Blos for ‘‘ means of living ” is freq. in N.T. 
fa 12, 30, xxi. 4; Mk. xii. 44; 1 Jn. iii. 17) and in class. Grk. In 
class. Grk. Bios is a higher word than {w7, the former being that which is 

culiar to man, the latter that which he shares with brutes and vegetables. 
is N.T. Bios retains its meaning, being either the ‘‘ period of human life,” as 
1 Tim. ii. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 4, or ‘‘ means of life,” as here. But {w7 is raised 
above Bios, and means that vital principle which through Christ man shares 
with God. Hence Bios is comparatively rare in N.T., which is not much 
concerned with the duration of temporal life or the means of prolonging it. 
Whereas {w4 occurs more than a hundred times. See Trench, Sym. xxvii.; 
Crem. Lex. p. 272; Lft. on Jen. ad Rom. vii. 3. 

WH. follow B D., Arm. in omitting larpots... Blov. Treg. and RV, 
indicate doubt in marg. Syr-Sin. omits. 


otk toxucev. This use of icyvw for “be able” is freq. in Lk. 
See on vi. 48. It is natural that “the physician” does not add, 
as Mk. does, that she had suffered much at the hands of the 
physicians, and was worse rather than better for their treatment. 
The remedies which they tried in such cases were sometimes very 
severe, and sometimes loathsome and absurd. See Lightfoot, 
p. 614; Tristram, Zastern Customs in Bible Lands, pp. 22, 23. 
44. mpocehQoica Smicev Hato. She came from behind that 
Ae might not see her. Her malady made her levitically unclean, 
and she did not wish to own this publicly. Her faith is tinged 
with superstition. She believes that Christ’s garments heal magic- 
ally, independently of His will. In other cases those who touched 
Him in faith seem to have done so openly. Comp. vi. 19; Mt. 
xiv. 36; Mk. iii. ro, vi. 56. 
For 6micGev a has de retro: comp. Baruch vi. 5, v2sa ttague turba de retro 
(Vulg.). Hence the French derrzére, 


Tou Kpacmédou tod ipatiov. “The tassel” rather than “the 
fringe” or “hem of His garment.” The square overgarment or 
Tallith had tassels of three white threads with one of hyacinth at 
each of the four corners. Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. p. 624 (but see 
D.B. art. “Hem of Garment”). Of the four corners two hung 
in front, and two behind. It was easy to touch the latter without 
the wearer feeling the touch. 

oT W fpuots. It “stood still, ceased to flow.” Mk. has 
eEnpavOn. “This is the only passage in the N.T. in which torava 
is used in this sense. It is the usual word in the medical writers 
to denote the stoppage of bodily discharges, and especially such as 
are mentioned here” (Hobart, p.15). Both wapaxpipa, for which 
Mk. has ci@vs, and mpocavakdcaca, for which Mk. has daravycaca, 
are also claimed as medical (pp. 16, 96). 

45. There is no reason for supposing that the miracle was 
wrought wzthout the will of Jesus. He knew that someone had 
been healed by touching His garment; and we may believe that 
He read the woman’s heart as she approached Him in the belief 


236 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII 45-50. 


that He could heal her. Lk. evidently dates the cure from her 
touching His garment; Mt. seems to place it in Christ’s words to 
her; Mk. in do¢h places. 

tis 6 dduevds wou; This does not seem to be one of those 
cases in which Christ asked for zz/formation. He knew that He 
had been touched with a purpose, and He probably knew who 
had done it. Mk.’s wepueBAérero idetv THY TotTo roujcacay rather 
implies that He knew where to look. or the woman's sake she 
must be induced to avow her act. Note the masc., which makes 
the question all the more general: Mk. has tis pou mato trav 
ivatiwv. The verb implies more than touching, “laying hold of.” 
For other cases in which Jesus asked questions of which He knew 
the answer comp. xxiv. 17; Mk. ix. 33. See some good remarks 
in the S. P. C. K. Comm. on Lk. viii. 46. 

dpvoupevev 8é wévtwv. This explains, and to some extent excuses, 
Peter’s characteristic interference. Lk. alone tells us that Peter 
took the lead in this. See on ix. 20, and comp. Mk. i. 36. Note the 
mwdvtwv, and see on ix. 43 and xi. 4. For emortdta see on Vv. 5. 

cuvéxouciv oe. “Hold Thee in, keep Thee a prisoner”; xix. 
43, xxll. 63; comp. iv. 38. Here only in N.T. does dmoO\iBew 
occur: Lat. affigere (Vulg.), comprimere (f), contribulare (d); om. 
ab ff,. 

46. éyvwv Suvauw efedynubuiay dm éyod. For the constr. see 
Burton, § 458, and comp. Heb. xiii. 23 ; and for 8uvapis see on iv. 

6. : 


47. tpénouca 7Oev. The wdytwy in ver. 45, if taken literally, 
implies that she had previously denied her action. The 7#A6e, 
however, seems to show that she had gone a little way from Him 
after being healed. But she may also have been afraid that she 
had done wrong in touching His garment. Either or both would 
explain the tpéuovoa. She is afraid that the boon may be with- 
drawn. For the attraction 8¢ #v airéav see small print on iii. 19, 
and Burton, § 350: rod Aao?d is also characteristic. 

48. % miotis cou ceowkév ce. All three record these words. It 
was the grasp of her faith, not of her hand, that wrought the cure. 
Thus her low view of the manner of Christ’s healing is corrected. 

49. épyetat tis mapa Tod dpxiouvaydyou. A member of his 
household arrives and tells Jairus that it is now too late. The 
delay caused by the incident with the woman must have been 
agonizing to him. But this trial is necessary for the development 
of his faith, as well as for that of the woman, and Jesus curtails no 
item in His work. The ré@vyxev is placed first with emphasis. 
For oxt\e see on vii. 6. See also Blass on Acts x. 44. 

50. Mi} dood, pdvov mioteucov. Change of tense. ‘“ Cease to 
fear; only make an act of faith.” In Mk. v. 36 we have povov 
wiareve, “only continue to believe.” In either case the meaning 


VIII. 50-54.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 237 


is, “In the presence of this new difficulty let faith prevail, and all 
will be well.” For py ood see on i. 13. 

Bl. odk dbixev cicehOetv twa civ atta. “ Did not allow anyone 
to enter with Him into the room.” He and the disciples had 
already entered the house, and the parents had been there from 
the first. Here, as in ver. 38, Lk. has ovv where Mk. has pera: 
see on i. 56. 

Mérpov Kal "lwdvny kat “IdkwBov. The chosen three (éxAexrav 
éxXexorepor as Clem. Alex. calls them) are probably admitted for 
the sake of the Twelve, whose faith would be strengthened by the 
miracle. These three sufficed as witnesses. Moreover, they were 
in character most fitted to profit by the miracle. Here, as in ix. 
28 and Acts i. 13, John is placed before James. Elsewhere the 
other order, which is almost certainly the order of age, prevails 
(v. 10, vi. 14, ix. 51), and always in Mt. (iv. 21, x. 2, xvi. 1) and 
Mk. (i. 19, 29, iil. 17, V. 37, ix. 2, X. 35, 41, Xlil. 3, xiv. 33). 

Irenzeus had a text which omitted xal ’Iwdyny. Quzntus autem ingressus 
Dominus ad mortuam puellam suscitavit eam, nullum enim, inguit, permisit 
intrare nist Petrum et Jacobum et patrem et matrem puellz (i. 24. 4). No 
existing text makes this omission ; but many authorities transpose James and 
John in order to have the usual order (§ A LS X L, Boh. Aeth. Arm. Goth.) 


But the evidence of BCDEFHK, abcdefffi,l1qr Cod. Am. Cod. Brix 
etc. is decisive. There is similar confusion in ix. 28 and Acts i. 13. 


52. éxdarov Sé mdévtes Kal éxdmrovro attmv. The mourners 
(2 Chron. xxxv. 25; Jer. ix. 17) were not in the room with the 
corpse: Mt. and Mk. tell us that Christ turned them out of the 
house. The wavres is again peculiar to Lk.’s account: comp. 
vv. 40, 45, 47. ‘The acc. after xowromat is class. (Eur. Zro. 623; 
Aristoph. Zys. 396): “they beat their breasts for her, bewailed 
her.” Comp. xxili. 27; Gen. xxiii. 2; 1 Sam. xxv. 1. 

ob yap dméQavev GAG KaSevder. This declaration is in all three 
narratives. Neander, Olshausen, Keim, and others understand it 
literally ; and possibly Origen is to be understood as taking the 
same view. A miracle of power is thus turned into a miracle of 
knowledge. But the ciddres in ver. 53 is conclusive as to the 
Evangelist’s meaning: not “supposing,” but “4owing that she 
was dead.” The xaGevda is rather to be understood in the same 
sense as Adfapos xexoiuyrat (Jn. xi. 11). But the cases are not 
parallel, for there Jesus prevents all possibility of misunderstanding 
by adding Aalapos dréOavev. Yet the fact that Jesus has power to 
awaken explains in both cases why He speaks of sleep. We may, 
however, be content, with Hase, to admit that certainty is unattain- 
able as to whether the maiden was dead or in a trance. 

54. xparjcas tis xetpds atts. All three mention that He laid 
hold of her, although to touch a dead body was to incur ceremonial 
uncleanness. In like manner He touched the leper: see on v. 13. 


238 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII. 64, 55 


This laying hold of her hand and the raised voice (é¢wvycer) are 
consonant with waking one out of sleep, and the two may be 
regarded as the means of the miracle. Comp. and contrast through- 
out Acts ix. 36-42. 

‘H mais, €yeipe. “ Arise, get up,” not “awake.” Mt. omits 
the command ; Mk. gives the exact words, Zalitha cumi. For the 
nom. with the art. as voc. see on x. Pa xviii. II, 13. For épdvycev 
comp. ver. 8, xvi. 24. 

55. éméotpepev 75 mvedpa aitas. There can be no doubt that 
the Evangelist uses the phrase of the spirit returning to a dead 
body, which is the accurate use of the phrase. Only the beloved 
physician makes this statement. In LXX it is twice used of a 
living man’s strength reviving; of the fainting Samson (Judg. 
xv. 19), and of the starving Egyptian (1 Sam. xxx. 12). Note that 
Lk. has his favourite tapaxp7 pa, where Mk. has his favourite 
evdds ; and Comp. Ver. 44, V. 25, XVili. 43, Xxii. 60. 

Siétagev atth Sobjvar payetv. This care of Jesus in command- 
ing food after the child’s long exhaustion would be of special 
interest to Lk. In their joy and excitement the parents might 
have forgotten it. The charge is somewhat parallel to édwxev avrov 
TH ytpt avrod (vii. 15) of the widow’s son at Nain. In each case 
He intimates that nature is to resume its usual course: the old ties 
and the old responsibilities are to begin again. 

6 8é mapyyyethev adtots pndevi eimety TO yeyovds. The command 
has been rejected as an unintelligible addition to the narrative. 
No such command was given at Nain or at Bethany. The object 
of it cannot have been to keep the miracle a secret. Many were 
outside expecting the funeral, and they would have to be told why 
no funeral was to take place. It can hardly have been Christ’s 
intention in this way to prevent the multitude from making a bad 
use of the miracle. This command to the parents would not have 
attained such an object. It was given more probably for the 
parents’ sake, to keep them from letting the effect of this great 
blessing evaporate in vainglorious gossip. To thank God for it at 
home would be far more profitable than talking about it abroad. 


IX. 1-50. Zo the Departure for Jerusalem. 


This is the last of the four sections into which the Ministry in 
Galilee (iv. 14-ix. 50) was divided. It contains the Mission of the 
Twelve (1-9), the Feeding of the Five Thousand (10-17), the 
Transfiguration (28-36), the Healing of the Demoniac Boy (37-43), 
and two Predictions of the Passion (18-27, 43-50). 


1-9. The Mission of the Twelve and the Fears of Herod. Mt. 
« 1-15; Mk. vi. 7-11. Mt. is the most full. Lk. gives no note 


IX. 1-3.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 239 


of time or of connexion, and we may suppose that his sources gave 
him no information. See Weiss, Z. /. ii. p. 119, Eng. tr. il. p. 306 
For mention of “the Twelve” see vi. 13, Viil. I, Be TA. QML, Bl 
xxii. 3, 47. All three mention this summons or invitation on the 
part of Jesus. Mt. and Mk. describe it by their usual rpooxadetoOa, 
for which Lk. has cuvkadetoOar, which he more commonly uses in 
his Gospel (ix. 1, xv. 6, 9, xxiii. 13), while in the Acts he generally 
uses mpooxareio Pat (il, 20;i¥e 40, Vin 2,7 xiii 25, fe.) 

1. Suvapiw Kai efovgiay. Mt. and Mk. have efovotuy only (see 
on iv. 36): dvvayis is the power, efovcia the authority to use it. 
The Jewish exorcists had neither dvvoyis nor égovoia, and made 
elaborate and painful efforts, which commonly failed. Elsewhere, 
when the two are combined, éfoveia precedes Svvayus (iv. 36; 
1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. i. 21; 1 Pet. iii. 22). The rdyra with 
Sauovia is peculiar to Lk. It covers all that would come under 
the head of possession. | 


The constr. is not really doubtful: vécous Oeparetew depends on divayuy 
xal éfovotay, and is co-ordinate with éml mdvra Saiudvia. Others make pv. ep. 
depend on &wxey and be co-ordinate with dvv. x. é&. The least satisfactory 
way is to couple vécous with dacudvia, and make Bepamevew refer to both” : 
‘authority over all diseases and demons, to heal them.” For this meaning 
Lk. would almost certainly have written ro Oepaevew. He as usual men- 
tions the curing of demoniacs separately from other healings (iv. 40, 41, 
vi. 17, 18, vii. 21, viii. 2, xiii. 32). 

2. After lac@at C etc. ins. rods dodevodvras from Mt. ; AD L& ins, rovs 
daGeveis: om. B, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. 


2. knptooew Thy Baotdelav Tod Ocod Kat idobar. These two verbs 
sum up the ministration to men’s souls and bodies. See on v. 17. 
Mt. adds that they were to raise the dead (x. 8). Mk. tells us that 
they were sent out dvo, dvo. For dmooré\hw see on iv. 18, p. 121. 

3. pyre pdBSov. Mk. has ei pi paBdov povor (vi. 8); and the 
attempts to explain away this discrepancy in a small matter of 
detail are not very happy. As between Mt. and Mk. it is possible 
to explain that both mean “Do not frocure («rjoeobe) a staff for 
the journey, but ¢ake (aipwow) the one which you have.” But both 
Mk. and Lk. use aipev, and the one has “Take nothing except a 
staff,” while the other has “Take nothing, neither a ‘staff,” etc. 
Yet in all three the meaning is substantially the same: “ Make no 
special preparations ; go as you are.” From xxii. 35 we learn that 
the directions were obeyed, and with good results. Lk. says 
nothing about sandals, respecting which there is another discrep- 
ancy between Mt. and Mk., unless we are to suppose that trodjpara 
are different from caSd\ua. 

pate &pydpuov. Mk. has xaAxdy and Mt. has both, pyde apyvpor 
pndé xadxov. Thus Lk. is Greek, and Mk. is Roman, in choice of 
words, In LXX dpyvpiov is very common, dpyvpos comparatively 


240 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Tx. 3-7 


rare, while xaAxos is common as a metal, but not in the sense of 
money. 

pyre Svo xiTOvas éxew. As no zypa was allowed, the second 
tunic, if taken, would have to be worn. Hence the form in Mk., 
“Put not on two tunics.” Comp. Jos. Avs. xvil. 5. 7. 


In éxewv we have an anacoluthon ; change from direct to oblique oration, 
For it is scarcely admissible to take "See as infin. for imperat. The actual 
imperat. both precedes (aipere) and follows (uévere). Win. xliii. 5. d, p. 397- 
Mk. here is strangely abrupt in his mixture of constructions. 


4. éxet petvete kal exeiOev céépyeobe. Vulg. has ef inde ne exeatis. 
But only one cursive has py (38). Cod. Brix. has donec exeatis fr. 
Mt. The meaning is “Go not from house to house,” as He charges 
the Seventy in x. 7, a passage which should be compared with this. 
The mission both of the Twelve and of the Seventy was to be 
simple and quiet, working from fixed centres in each place. This 
is the germ of what we find in the apostolic age,—“ the church that 
is in their house” (Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15; 
Philem. 2). 

5. For 8éxwvtat see on vili. 13, and for égepysuevor dé see On 
iv. 35. In Acts xili. 51 we find Paul and Barnabas performing this 
symbolical action of shaking off the dust. It signified that hence- 
forth they had not the smallest thing in common with the place. 
It is said that Pharisees performed this action when re-entering 
Judzea from heathen lands. There and in Acts xviii. 6 Lk. uses 
éxtwaoo., which Mt. and Mk. have here. For dmorwacoe. comp. 
Acts xxviii. 5. The ém adtods means lit. “upon them,” and so 
“against them.” Comp. 2 Cor. i. 23 and Acts xiii, 51, and 
contrast 2 Thes. i. ro. Mk. here has airois. 

6. cdayyeAtLopuevor Kat Oepamedovtes. Comp. ver. 2. Union of 
care for men’s bodies with care for their souls is characteristic of 
Christ and of Christian missions. The miraculous cures of the 
apostolic age have given place to the propagation of medical and 
sanitary knowledge, which is pursued most earnestly under Christian 
influences. For 8:jpxovto see on ii. 15, and for edayyedtLouevor see 
on ii. ro. Excepting Mk. i. 28, xvi. 20, 1 Cor. iv. 17, mavraxod 
occurs only here and three or four times in Acts: here it goes with 
both participles. 

7-9. The Fears of Herod. Mt. places this section much later 
(xiv. 1-13); but Mk. (vi. 14-16) agrees with Lk. in connecting it 
with the mission of the Twelve. It was their going in all directions 
up and down the villages (8ujpxovro Kara Tas Képas) that caused the 
fame of Christ’s work to reach Herod davepoy yap éyévero 76 Gvopa 
avtov (Mk, vi. 14), or, at anyrate, excite his fears. 

7. ‘Hpwdns 6 tetpdpxos. So also Mt. But Mk. gives him his 
courtesy title of BacwAevs. See oniii. 1, p. 83. Thera yivopeva, mdvra 


IX. 7-9.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 241 


means “all that was being done” by Jesus and His disciples. 
There is no wavra in Mt. or Mk., either here or in the parallels to 
ver. 1. See on viii. 45. The thoroughly classical word 8iynmépe 
does not occur in LXX, nor in N.T. excepting in Lk. (Acts ii. 12, 
v. 24, x. 17). Antipas was “utterly at a loss” as to what he was to 
think of Jesus. Note the change of tense: he heard once for all ; 
he remained utterly at a loss) He had no doubt heard of Christ 
before. It was the startling theories about Him which perplexed 
Herod. 

"lwdvys jyépOn dk vexpdv. This is strong evidence of the effect 
of John’s teaching. During his life he “did no sign,” and yet they 
think it possible that so great a Prophet has risen from the dead 
and is working miracles. Comp. Mt. xvi. 14; Mk. viii. 28. For 
éx vexpov comp. xx. 35. For wyép0y (§ BCL 169) most MSS. 
have ¢y7yepta, which is not to be accepted because 7yép@y is found 
in Mt. 

8. "HXelas ébdvy. The verb is changed from 7yépn, because 
Elijah had not died. Mt. represents Améipas as saying that Jesus 
is the risen Baptist, and omits the suggestions about Elijah and 
other Prophets. The account of Lk. is intrinsically more exact. 
He would obtain good information at Czsarea from Herod’s 
steward (viii. 3), and at Antioch from Herod’s foster-brother (Acts 

Tpodytys Tis Tov dpxaiwv. We know from Jn. vii. 40, 41 that 
some Jews distinguished the great Prophet of Deut. xviii. 15 from 
the Messiah. Comp. Jn. i. 21. And Mt. xvi. 14 seems to show 
that there was an expectation that Jeremiah or other Prophets 
would return at some future crisis. The trav dpyxaiwy is peculiar to 
Lk. (comp. ver. 19). It may be opposed either to a new Prophet 
(vii. 16), or to the later Prophets as compared with Moses and 
Samuel. The former is more probable. 

9. “lwdvyvy éyo dmexepddioa. ‘As for John, Z beheaded him.” 
Mt. and Mark represent Herod as saying of Christ, “This is 
John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead”: and some in- 
terpret this remark as meaning much the same: “Seeing that I 
put him to death, he may have risen again.” But this is very 
unnatural. Rather, “I thought that I had got rid of this kind of 
trouble when I beheaded John; and here I am having it all over 
again.” Perhaps, as Bede suggests, Antipas afterwards came to 
the conclusion that the Baptist had risen from the dead, a view 
which to his guilty conscience was specially unwelcome. Lk. men- 
tions the imprisonment of the Baptist by anticipation (iii. 20) ; but, 
excepting in this remark of Antipas, he does not record his death. 

to.adta. This may refer either to the works of Christ or to 
the speculations of the multitude respecting Him. Although 
John had wrought no miracles during his ministry (John x. 41), 

16 


242 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IX. 9, 10 


yet, if he had risen from the dead, such things might be expected 
of him (Mt. xiv. a). 


The éy# of TR. before dxovw is of very doubtful authority (A D XT ete,): 
Treg. brackets, Tisch. WH. RV. omit. It would have no point. 


eLyjter iSetv adtév. Not merely “he desired” (AV.), but “he 
continued seeking to see Him.” He made various attempts to 
apply a test which would have settled the question. Herod knew 
the Baptist ; and he could soon determine whether this was John 
or not, if only he could see Him. Comp. xxiii. 8, where the 
gratification of this desire is recorded. No doubt it was not 
merely the wish to settle the question of identity which led Antipas 
to try to see Jesus. That he was a Sadducee is a guess of Scholten. 

10-17. The Feeding of the Five Thousand. This is the one 
miracle which is recorded by all four Evangelists (Mt. xiv. 13; 
Mk. vi. 30; Jn. vi. 1). In all four it is the climax of the ministry. 
Henceforward attention is directed more and more to the death 
which will bring Christ’s work to a close. From S. John we learn 
that it took place shortly before the Passover. All four accounts 
should be compared. Each contributes some special, features, 
and each appears to be to a large extent independent. The marks 
of Lk.’s style are abundant in his narrative. 

10. Grootpépavtes. See small print on i. 56. Lk. connects the 
miracle with the return of the Twelve; but he gives no hint as to 
the time of their absence. We may perhaps allow a few weeks. He 
does not often call the Twelve of dméctodor (vi. 13, XVil. 5. xxii. 
14, Xxiv. 10). 

Sinyjoavto attG dca émoincov. What this was has already 
been recorded in brief (ver. 6). It is strange that anyone should 
infer from Lk.’s not expressly mentioning, as Mk. does (vi. 12, 13), 
the casting out of demons, “that Lk. wishes us to believe that 
they had failed in this respect,” and “‘had evidently been able to 
carry out only a part of their commission.” Lk. records the suc- 
cess of the Seventy in exorcizing demons (x. 17): why should he 
wish to insinuate that the Twelve had failed? Excepting Mk. v. 
16, ix. 9; Heb. xi. 32, duyyeto@ae occurs only in Lk. (vill. 39; 
Acts vili. 33, ix. 27, xii. 17). Comp. ver. 49. Lk. perhaps wishes 
us to understand that it was the report which the Apostles brought 
of their doings that led to Christ’s taking them apart, as Mk. says, 
for rest. Mt. states that it was the news of the Baptist’s death 
which led to the withdrawal. Jn. has only a vague pera tatra, 
All may be correct ; but there can have been no borrowing. 

tmapahaBav adtous. Comp. ver. 28, xvili. 31. 

dmexdpyncev kat idSiav. The verb occurs only here and v. 16 
in NT. Comp. Ecclus. xiii. 9 (12). Lk. does not seem to be 
aware that Christ and His disciples went by boat across the lake 


IX. 10-13.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 243 


(Mt. Mk. Jn.), while the multitude went round by land. Hence 
it is possible that he supposed that the miracle took place near 
Bethsaida on the west shore, and not at Bethsaida Julias on the 
Jordan near the north-east end of the lake. See D.B.? art. 
“Bethsaida.” Mt. Mk. and Lk. all have xar’ idiav. 


The common reading, els réqrov Epnuor wédews Kahovuérns ByOoasdd 
(ACEGHKMSVUV etc., Aeth. Arm. Goth.), seems to be an ingenious 
conflation of the original text, els wodtv Kahoupévny Byfoudd (BLXE 33, 
Boh. Sah.),—which is supported by D [only xany for wodwv],—wzth a correce 
tion of it, els Térov Epnuoy (%*), or els Témov Epnuov Brbcadd (bc f,lg 
Vulg. Syr.), or els rézrov Epnuov Kahotpevov Byfaoadd (ae f). These corrections 
would be suggested by ver. 12 and Mt. and Mk. and the difficulty of associat- 
ing the miracle with a ré\ts. See WH. ii. Intr, p. 102, and also Wordsw. 
Vulg. zz Joco. For other apparent instances of conflation see xi, 54, xii. 18, 
xxiv. 53. Note Lk.’s favourite kaXoupwévny. 

11. of Sé SyAor yvdvtes FKodovOncav attd. The Baptist was 
dead and the Twelve had returned to Jesus, so that there was no 
longer any counter-attraction. No Evangelist tells us how long 
Jesus and the disciples enjoyed their privacy before the multitudes 
arrived. 

dmodefdpevos adtous. “He gave them a welcome,” as they had 
given Him (see on viii. 40), although their arrival destroyed the 
retirement which He had sought. As Jn. states, it was His 
miracles of healing which attracted them rather than His teaching. 
For arodeEduevos (§NBDLXE 1 33 69) AC etc. have defduevos: 
the compound is peculiar to Lk. It corresponds to éorAayyvicby 
in Mt. and Mk. 

ehddet adrois wept tis Bac. tr. ©., x.7.A. “‘ He continued speak- 
ing to them about the kingdom of God; and those who had need 
of cure He healed.” See on v. 17 and ix. 6. Neither Mt. nor 
Jn. say anything about His teaching the multitudes, or about His 
healing any of them. 


12. 4 82 jpépa ApEaro KAlvew. Comp. Jer. vi. 43 Judg. xix. 11, ix. 33 
1 Sam. iv. 2. In N.T. Lk. alone uses «Alvew intransitively (xxiv. 29). 
Comp. éxxAlvere dm’ atrSv (Rom. xvi. 17). In Att. Grk. xAlvay is gener. 
ally trans., doxAlvey intrans. Win. xxxviii. I, p. 315. 


mpoceh@ovtes Sé of Sddexa. In the three it is the Twelve who 
take the initiative ; in Jn. it is the Lord who does so. 
els Tas KUKAw KGpas Kal Gypovs. Being similar in meaning, the nouns 
have only one article, although they differ in gender: comp. i, 6 and xiv. 23, 
and contrast x. 21 and xiv. 26. See oni. 6. 


émoutiopév. Here only in N.T., but quite class. It is speci- 
ally used of provisions for a journey: Gen. xlii. 25, xlv. 21; Josh 
ix. 5, 11; Judith ii. 18, iv. 5; Xen. Avaéd. i. 5. 9, vii. 1. 9. 

18. Both e?rev 5€ and wpds are in Lk.’s style, and \ither 
occurs in the parallels. The same is true of rdvra, an¢ in ver 


244 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Tx. 13-16. 


14 of wpés and the second dcei Note the emphatic spets. 
“Ye are to find food for them, not they.” There is no need to 
supply anything after ei pyre fpets dyopdowpev. “ We have no more 
than five loaves,” leads quite naturally to “unless we are to go 
and buy,” etc.; and then the sentence is complete. The state- 
ment expresses perplexity (Weiss), not sarcasm (Schanz). 


Oix ciolvy hpiv wreiov 4 wéevte. The mAciov 4 wévre is virtually plur. 
and has a plur. verb. For the subjunct. after ef uy comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 5, 
and see Win. xli. 2. b, p. 368, and Burton, § 252, 253. The subjunct, after 
el is not rare in late Grk. But this is rather a delib. subjunct. 


Jn. tells us that it was Andrew who pointed out the lad with 
the loaves, and that they were of barley-bread. On the whole, 
his narrative is the most precise. The jpets, like the preceding 
dyeis, is emphatic. 

14. doei avdpes tmevtaxicxidvo. They were roughly counted 
as about a hundred companies with about fifty men in each. 
Note the avdpes: not advfpwro. The women and children, as 
Mk. tells us, were not included in the reckoning. They would be 
much less numerous than the men. ‘Lk. says nothing about the 
grass, which all the others mention, and which made the com- 
panies in their Oriental costumes look like flower-beds (zpacuat), 
as Mk. indicates. 


KatakAtvate attots KAtofas. The verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (vii. 
36, xiv. 8, xxiv. 30); in LXX Num. xxiv. 9; Exod. xxi. 18; Judg. v. 27; 
Judith xii. 15. The «Atclas is cogn. acc. It occurs here only in bibl, Grk. 
Comp. Jos. Azt, xii. 2. 11; Plut. Sertor. xxvi. 


Goel dva tevrjxovta. In the spaces between the groups the 
Apostles would be able to move freely and distribute the food. 
That the arrangement (50, 5000) has any relation to the five loaves 
is not likely. The dvd is distributive: comp. x. 1; Mt. xx. 9; 
Jn. ii. 6; Rev. iv. 8. 

16. Here Mt. Mk. and Lk. are almost verbatim the same. 
All three mention the taking the loaves and fishes, the looking up 
to heaven, the blessing, and the breaking, and the giving to the 
disciples. For ed\oynoev Jn. has edxapiorjoas. This blessing or 
thanksgiving is the usual grace before meat said by the host or the 
head of the house. The Talmud says that “he who enjoys aught 
without thanksgiving is as though he robbed God.” We are 
probably to understand that this blessing is the means of the 
miracle. Comp. Jn. vi. 23; and of feeding the four thousand 
“(Mt. xv. 36; Mk. viii. 6); and of the eucharist (Mt. xxvi 26; 
Mk. xiv. 22; Lk. xxii. 17, 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24). The manner of 
the miracle cannot be discerned: it is a literal fulfilment of Mt. vi. 
33- Lk. alone mentions that Jesus blessed she loaves, ebdoynow 
autovs. The preceding articles, tods wévte dprovs Kai tods dvo 


EX.,16,17.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 245 


ixOvas, mean those which had been mentioned before in ver. 13, 
where the words have no article. 

€Si80u tots palytais. ‘Continued giving them to the disciples ’ 
The imperf. in the midst of aorists is graphic. Comp. xxiv. 30; 
Mk. viii. 6, and contrast xxii. 19; Mk. xiv. 22. 

17. The verbal resembiance between the three accounts con- 
tinues. For éxyoptdc@yoav see on vi. 21, and take kdacpdtwy after ro 
mepisoedoay (De W. Hahn). All four mention the twelve xoguwox, 
as also does Mt. in referring to this miracle (xvi. 9); whereas at 
the feeding of the four thousand (Mt. xv. 37; Mk. viii. 8), and in 
referring to it (Mt. xvi. 10), the word used for basket is ozupis. It 
is the more remarkable that Lk. and Jn. both have xé¢uvor because 
they do not mention the other miracle. The ozvpis was large, cap- 
able of holding a man (Acts ix. 25). The xdd¢uvos was.the wallet 
carried by every travelling Jew, to avoid buying food from Gentiles: 
Judzis quorum cophinus fenumgque supellex (Juv. Sat. iil. 14). 
Comp. zupsisti, Gellia, cistifero, “thou hast married a Jew” (Mart. 
Epig. v.17. 4). These exact details would scarcely have been 
maintained so consistently in a deliberate fiction or in a myth. 
Still less would either fiction or myth have represented one who 
could multiply food at will as giving directions that the fragments 
should not be wasted (Jn. vi. 12). The possessor of an in- 
exhaustible purse is never represented as being watchful against 
extravagance. 

Note the climax in ver. 17. They not only ate, but were 
satisfied,—all of them ; and not only so, but there was something 
over,—far more than the original supply. 

Weiss well remarks that ‘‘the criticism which is afraid of miracles finds 
itself in no small difficulty in the presence of this narrative. It is guaranteed 
by all our sources which rest upon eye-witness; and these show the inde- 
pendence of their tradition by their deviations, which do not affect the kernel 
of the matter, and cannot be explained by any tendencies whatever. In the 
presence of this fact the possibility of myth or invention is utterly inad- 
missible. . . . Only this remains absolutely incontrovertible, that it is the 
intention of all our reports to narrate a miracle; and by this we must abide, if 
the origin of the tradition is not to abide an entirely inexplicable riddle” (Z. 7. 
ii. pp. 196-200, Eng. tr. ii, pp. 381-385). The explanation that Christ’s 
generosity in giving away the food of His party induced others who had food 
to give it away, and that thus there was enough for all, is plainly not what 
the Evangelists mean, and it does not explain their statements. Would such 
generosity suggest that He was the Messiah, or induce them to try to make 
Him king? Still more inadequate is the suggestion of Renan: Grace a une 
extréme frugalité, la troupe sainte y vécut; on crut naturellement voir en 
cela un miracle (V. de J. p. 198). 


18-22. The Confession of Peter and First Announcement of 
the Passion. Mt. xvi. 13-21; Mk. viii. 27-31. No connexion 
with the miracle just related is either stated or implied. Lk. 
omits the sequel of the miracle. the peremptory dismissal of the 


246 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [rx. 18-20. 


disciples and gradual dismissal of the people, the storm, the walk- 
ing on the sea, the discourse on the Bread of Life, the Syro- 
phenician woman, the Ephphatha miracle, the feeding of the 
four thousand, the forgetting to take bread, and the healing of a 
blind man at Bethsaida Julias (Mt. xiv. 22-xvi. 12; Mk. vi. 45- 
viii. 26; Jn. vi. 14-71). Can he then have seen either Mt. or 
Mk.? So also here : both the others mention that the incident took 
place near Ceesarea Philippi, 0 the confines of heathenism. Lk. 
mentions no place. It is a desperate expedient to suppose with 
Reuss, that the copy of Mk. which Lk. knew chanced to omit 
these sections. From ver. 18 to ver. 50 Lk. is once more parallel 
in the main to the other two. 

18. Kai éyéveto év TH eivar adtév mpoceuxdpevov. See note at 
the end of ch. i. and on iii. 21. For the periphrastic infinitive 
comp. xi. 1, and Burton, § 97. Jesus Patrem rogarat, ut discipulis 
se revelaret. am argumentum precum Jesu colligi potest ex ser- 
monibus actionibusque insecutis ; Vi. 12, 13 (Beng.). 


kata pdévas, Perhaps x#pas was originally understood. But the ex- 
pression is used as a simple adv. and is sometimes written as one word, kara- 
#évas. In N.T. only here and Mk. iv. 10, In LXX Ps. iv, 9, xxxli. 155 
Jer. xv. 17; Lam. iii. 28. 


cuvicavy att@ of padytat. This almost amounts to a contra- 
diction of what precedes. ‘When He was alone praying, His 
disciples were with Him.” “ Alone” no doubt means “in pri- 
vate,” or “in a solitary spot,” and may be taken with ovvqcav: so 
that the contradiction is only on the surface. Moreover we are 
perhaps to understand that His Prayer was solitary : His disciples 
did not join in it. In either case xara pévas is quite intelligible, 
although the disciples may have been close to Him. But it is 
possible that the true reading is ovv7vrycar, meaning, “ His disciples 
met Him, fell in with Him,” as He was engaged in prayer. This 
is the reading of B*, which a later scribe has corrected to owvjjcar. 
And B* is here supported by the Old Latin f (occurrerunt) and 
one excellent cursive (157), besides two less important authorities. 
Nevertheless, it is on the whole more probable that ovvynvrycar is 
an early attempt to get rid of the apparent contradiction involved 
in Kata povas ow7joay. See Lxfositor, 3rd series, iv. p. 159. 
Elsewhere in N.T. cvveiva: occurs only Acts xxii. 11. 

20. ‘Ypeis 8¢. With great emphasis: “ But ye—who do ye say 
that I am?” The impulsiveness of Peter, and his Position as 
spokesman for the Twelve, are here conspicuous. He is oop. TOD 
Xopod: Vili. 45, xii. 41, xvili. 28. Lvcet ceteri apostoli sciant, Petrus 
tamen respondit pre ceteris (Bede). 

rov Xptotov ToG Ceod. Whom God hath anointed” and sent: 
eee on ii. 24 ~=©Here Mk. has simply 6 Xpiords, and Mt. 6 Xpuoros 


IX. 20-22.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 247 


& vids rod @eod rod Lavros. See Keim on this confession, as ‘a 
solemn event of the very highest character” (/es. of Waz. iv. 
p. 263). Lk. and Mk. omit the praise bestowed on Peter for 
this confession, and the much discussed promise made to him 
(Mt. xvi. 17-19). Can it be of supreme importance ? 

21. pndevi A€yew todro. Because of the grossly erroneous 
views about the Messiah which prevailed among the people. 
Shortly before this they had wished to take Him by force and 
make Him king (Jn. vi. 15). Hence Jesus never proclaimed 
Himself openly to the multitude as the Messiah ; and here, when 
He does to the Twelve, He explains the nature of His Kingdom, 
and strictly forbids them to make His Messiahship known. The 
nearest approach to exceptions to this practice are the Samaritan 
woman (Jn. iv. 26), and the outcast from the synagogue (Jn. ix. 37). 

Others explain the command to keep silence as prompted by the fear lest the 
guilt of those who were about to put Jesus to death should be increased by the 
disciples proclaiming Him as the Messiah. Others again suggest the fear lest 
the people, if they knew that He was the Messiah, should attempt to rescue 
Him from the death which it was necessary that He should undergo. Neither 


of these appears to be satisfactory. In any case the 8€ is adversative. What 
Peter said was quite true: ‘‘ éu¢ He charged them, and commanded.” 


22. Lk. does not tell us, as Mk. does, and still more plainly 
Mt., that this was the deginning of Christ’s predictions respecting 
His Passion: fjpfaro diddcKxew aitots dre Act, x.7.X. (Mk. viii. 31) ; 
Gd Tote Hp~ato Setxvvetv, x.7.A. (Mt. xvi. 21). The first announce- 
ment of such things must have seemed overwhelming. Peter’s 
protest perhaps expressed the feeling of most of them. 

eimay Ott Act. The ove is recitative, not argumentative. The 
Act is here in all three; but elsewhere Lk. uses it much more 
often than any other Evangelist. It expresses logical necessity 
rather than moral obligation (a¢eAev, Heb. ii. 17) or natural fitness 
(éxperev, Heb. ii. 10). It is a Divine decree, a law of the Divine 
nature, that the Son of Man must suffer. Prophecy had repeatedly 
intimated this decree. Comp. xili. 33, xvii. 25, xxil. 37, xxiv. 7, 26, 
44; Jn. iii, 14, etc. For tév uidv tod dvOpdmov, the title which 
suggested, while it veiled, His Messiahship, see on v. 24. 

drodokipacjvar dé tay, K.t.A. “ Be rejected after investigation 
at the hands of the,” etc. The Soxiacta was the scrutiny which 
an elected magistrate had to undergo at Athens, to see whether he 
was legally qualified to hold office. The hierarchy held such a 
scrutiny respecting the claims of Jesus to be the Christ, and 
rejected Him: xvil. 25, xx. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 4, 7. For the dao, “at 
the hands of,” comp. Ecclus. xx. 20; Lk. vii. 35; Acts ii. 22; 
Jas. i. 13; Rev. xii. 6. 

Tv tmpecButépwv Kat dpxtepeww kal ypappatéwy. The three 
nouns, as forming one body, have one article. So also in Mt. 


248 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IX. 23-25. 


xvi. 21. In Mk. xiv. 43, 53, where the Sanhedrin is spoken of 
with similar fulness, all three nouns have the article. The dpyte- 
pets are rarely placed second: comp. xx. 19; Mt. xvi. 21; Mk. 
vill. 31. The common formule are dpx., ypap., mperB. OF apx.; 


mpecB., ypau. and doy. mpeoB. OF apx., pape 


GmoxtavOyjvar. The pass. of dmoxrelvw is late Grk. Classical writers use 
OvjoKw or drobvynckw. For ty tpliry jyépa Mk. has the less accurate pera 
tpets jucpas. He also has dvacrjvat, while Mt. has éyep@jvat, which is 
probably right here ; but dvacrjjvac (A C D, Just. Orig.) is well supported. 


Lk. omits Peter’s protest against the declaration that Christ 
must suffer, and the severe rebuke which he received. His omission 
of ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan,” is sufficient answer to those who 
assert that it is out of ill-will to Peter that Lk. omits “ Blessed art 
thou, Simon Bar-Jonah.” See on v. ro and xxii. 54-62. 

23-27. The Self-Renouncement required in Christ’s Followers. 
Mt. xvi. 24-28; Mk. viii. 34-ix. 1. Although the manner of intro- 
ducing the words is different in all three, the similarity between the 
reports of the words is very close throughout, especially in the 
words quoted vv. 23, 24. Throughout the Gospels it is in 
the records of Christ’s sayings that the closest resemblances are 
found. Comp. xviii. 16, 17, 25, 27. 

23. mpds mdvtas. Both words are characteristic: see on ver. 43 
andi. 13. The zavras represents Mk.’s rév dxAov vv Tots paby- 
tats. The necessity of self-denial and self-sacrifice was made 
known to all, although for the present the supreme example of the 
necessity was a mystery revealed gradually to a very few. 

Gpdtw Tov otaupov attod Kal *juepav. ‘This is the first mention 
of the cross in Lk. and Mk. Its associations were such that this 
declaration must have been startling. The Jews, especially in 
Galilee, knew well what the cross meant. Hundreds of the 
followers of Judas and Simon had been crucified (Jos. Azz. 
XVilil. 10. 10). It represents, therefore, not so much a burden as an 
instrument of death, and it was mentioned because of its familiar 
associations. Comp. xiv. 27; Mt. x. 38. The xaé’ jpépay here is 
peculiar to Lk.: comp. 1 Cor. xv. 31. We must distinguish be- 
tween dkohou@eitw pot, “follow Me loyally,” and émicw pou epxecPat, 
“become My disciple.” There are three conditions of discipleship: 
self-denial, bearing one’s cross, and obedience. 

24. ds yap av Gdn. Here, as in ver. 23, “‘ will” (AV.) is too weak as 
a translation of #é\ew, being too like the simple future: “‘desireth” or 
“‘willeth”” is better: sz gues vult, gut enim voluertt, Such inadequate 


renderings of @é\e.y are common in AV. (xix. 143 Jn. vi. 67, vii. 17, vill. 44). 
See smal] print on x. 22. Comp. xvii. 33. 


25. tl yap adedeitar av@pwros. The same verb is used by all 
three; but AV. obliterates this by rendering “profit” in Mt. and 


IX. 25-27.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 249 


Mk., and “advantage” in Lk. Again, {npiwjvar is common to 
all three: yet AV. has “lose” in Mt. and Mk., and “cast away” in 
Lk. The opposition between xépdos and fyjpia is common in Grk. 
See Lft. on Phil. iii. 7. In N.T. the act. fjpidw does not occur, but 
only the pass. with either acc. of the thing confiscated (Phil. iii. 8), 
- or dat. with & (2 Cor. vii. 9), or absol. (1 Cor. iii. 15). The 
éaurév is equivalent to viv vy in ver. 24 and in Mt. and Mk. 
To be excluded from eternal life is death. Lk. omits ‘‘ What 
should a man give in exchange for his life?” We must keep 
“life” for Uvxn throughout the passage: the context shows when 
it means life as men desire it on earth, and when life as the blessed 
enjoy it in the Kingdom. The Gospel has raised the meaning of 
Yox7, as of wy, to a higher power. Comp. Rev. xii. 11. Frumen- 
tum si servas perdis, si seminas renovas (Bede). 


For the combination of aor. part. with fut, indic. comp. 3 Jn. 6, and 
Burton, § 141. 


26. éraicytvOn pe Kat Tods euots Adyous. Mt. omits. The 
éxt in comp. means “on account of”: this is the ground of his 
shame: comp. xii. 26, 27. For the constr. comp. Rom. i. 16; 
2 Tim. i. 8, 16; Heb. xi. 16. The év ri 86&q adrod refers to the 
mapovcia, not to the Resurrection (xii. 36, xvil. 24, xviii. 8, xix. 15, 
xxi. 27), and is the first mention by Lk. of Christ’s promising to 
return in glory. Lk. omits “in this adulterous generation” (Mk.). 

27. adn@ds. With Ado, not with what follows. Mt. and Mk 
have ayjv, which Lk. uses much less frequently than the others. 
In xi. 44 and xxi. 3 Lk. has dAnOas where Mt. has ayy. For 
attod, “here,” comp. Acts xv. 34; Mt. xxvi. 36. Mt. and Mk. 
have ade. 

yevowvtat Oavdtov. The expression is found in the Talmud, 
but not in O.T. Comp. Mt. xvi. 28; Jn. viii. 52; Heb. ii. 9. It 
implies experience of the bitterness of death. Comp. ideiv Gavarov 
‘(i. 26) and @avarov Oewpety (Jn. viii. 51). For yeveoGa: in the sense 
of “ experience” comp. Heb. vi. 4, 5; Ps. xxxiv. 9. 

Thy Bacihetav rob Ocod. Mk. adds eAnAvbviav & duvaue, and. 
Mt. substitutes 7. vidv tod avOp. épyopevov &v TH Bacrcia airod. 
The meaning is much disputed. The principal interpretations 
are :—1. The Transfiguration, which all three accounts closely con- 
nect with this prediction (most of the Fathers, Euthym. Theophyl. 
Maldon.); 2. Zhe Resurrection and Ascension (Cajetan, Calvin, 
Beza) ; 3. Pentecost and the great signs which followed it (Godet, 
Hahn); 4. Zhe spread of Christianity (Nosgen) ; 5. The internal 
development of the Gospel (Erasmus, Klostermann) ; 6. The destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem (Wetstein, Alford, Morison, Plumptre, Mansel) ; 
7. The Second Advent (Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann). No inter- 
nretation can be correct that does not explain cioiv twes, which 


250 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [rx. 27, 28 


implies the exceptional privilege of some, as distinct from the common 
experience of all, This test seems to exclude ail but the first and 
the sixth of these interpretations ; and, if we must choose between 
these two, the sixth must be right. ‘Shall not taste of death 
until” cannot refer exc/usively to an event to take place the next 
week. But both may be right. The Transfiguration, witnessed 
by only three of those present, was a foretaste of Christ’s glory 
both on earth and in heaven. The destruction of Jerusalem, 
witnessed by S. John and perhaps a few others of those present, 
swept away the remains of the Old Dispensation and left the 
Gospel in possession of the field.. Only so far as the destruction 
of Jerusalem was a type of the end of the world is there a 
reference to the zapoveta (see on xxi. 32). A direct reference to 
the zapovoia is excluded by the fact that none of those present 
lived to witness it, except in the sense that all men will witness it. 
Jesus has told us that during His life on earth He was ignorant of 
the date of the day of judgment (Mk. xii. 32): and we cannot 
suppose that in spite of that ignorance He predicted that it was 
near ; still less that He uttered a prediction which has not been 
fulfilled. Moreover, the od ph yedowvtar Savdrou ws implies that 
the tuves w// experience death after seeing the Bac. tr. Ocod, which 
would not be true of those who live to see the rapovoia (1 Cor. 
XV. 51). 

28-36. The Transfiguration. Mt. xvii. 1-13; Mk. ix. 2-13. 
Both Lk. (vz. 31, 32) and Mt. (xvii. 6, 7) give details which Mk. 
omits; but Mk. has very little (part of ix. 3) which is not in either 
of the others. 

Here again (see on viii. 35-39, 40-48) the marks of Lk.’s diction are numer- 
ous: éyévero, woel (ver. 28); éyévero, év T@ with infin. (29); dv Spes (30) 
ctv, dvdpas (32); eyévero, ev TQ, elmev wpbs, EwLaTaTA (33)5 évT@ (34)5 
pov éyéveTo (35); év TG, kat avtol, dmyyyethap, ev éxelvats Tais 

Huépats, ovdéev Sy (36). 

For comment see Tert. Adv. Marcion. iv. 22; Trench, Studies 
in the Gospels, pp. 184-214; Herzog, PREZ. art. Verkiarung, 
omitted in 2nd ed. ; Schaffs Herzog, art. “ Transfiguration.” 

28. doet ees éxté. A nom. without construction of any 
kind. Comp. Acts v. 7; Mt. xv. 32; Mk. viii. 2, and wAéov in 
ver. 13. Win. lviii. 4, p. 648. The other two have “after six 
days,” which agrees with “about eight days.” We can hardly say 
that Lk. is “improving their chronology.” It looks as if he had not 
seen their expression. For tapadaBdy comp. ver. ro, and for the 
order of the names see on vili. 51. Note that Lk. changes the 
order of the names. He places John before James (viii. 51), which 
may be because he wrote after John! had become the better known. 

eis td Spos. The others have eis dpos tyyAov. Both expressions 
wculd fit Hermon, which is about 9200 feet high, and would easily 


x. 28-31.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 251 


be reached in a week frora Czsarea Philippi. It is still called 
Jebel esh Sheikh, “the chief mountain.” It is higher than Lebanon 
(8500) or Anti-Lebanon (8700), and its isolated white summit is 
visible from many eminences throughout Palestine (Conder, Hand- 
book of the Bible, p. 205 ; D.B.*1. p. 1339; Tristram, Bible Places, 
p. 280). A tradition, which is first mentioned by Cyril of Jeru- 
salem (Ca/ech. xii. 16), places the scene of the Transfiguration on 
Tabor,! which at this time seems to have had a village or town on 
the top, which Josephus fortified against Vespasian (2. /. iv. 1. 8). 
In that case the solitude (xar idéavy) which is required for the 
Transfiguration would be impossible. The mpoced§ac6at is peculiar 
to this account: see on ili. 21, a similar occasion. 

29. éyéveto . . . érepov. The Gentile Lk. writing for Gentiles 
avoids the word perenopduby (Mt. xvii. 2; Mk. ix. 2), which might 
be understood of the metamorphosis of heathen deities. Comp & 
érépa poppy ({Mk.] xvi. 12). The Aeuxds need not be made ad- 
verbial. The asyndeton is not violent, if it be made co-ordinate 
with éfaorpdz7wv, a word which occurs Ezek. i. 4, 7; Nah. iil. 3. 

30. Both dvSpes and otriwes are peculiar to Lk. here: see ii. 4. 
The three Apostles saw the forms of two men who were such as to 
be recognized as Moses and Elijah,—the representatives of the 
Law and the Prophets. The power to recognize them was granted 

_ with the power to see them ; otherwise the sight would have been 
meaningless. In the same way S. Paul recognized Ananias in a 
vision, although he had not previously known him (Acts ix. 12). 
We might render the ofries “who were no others than.” That 
Moses was to reappear as well as Elijah at the beginning of the 
Messianic Kingdom, was a later dream of the Rabbis. See Lightfoot, 
Hor. Heb. ad loc. See small print on ii. 22 for the form Mavojs. 

$1, 32. Peculiar to Lk. See on xxii. 43. 

thy e€odev adtod. His departure from this world by means of 
the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. Comp. the use of 
eicodos in Acts xiii. 24. For éfo80s in the sense of death see 
2 Pet. i. 15; Wisd. ili. 2, vil.6. That the Apostles heard this 
subject being discussed explains part of the meaning of the 
Transfiguration. It was to calm their minds, which had recently 
been disturbed by the prediction of Christ’s sufferings and death.” 
The jpedXev corresponds to det in ver. 22. It is all ordained by 
God, and is sure to take place ; and when it takes place it may be 
regarded as a fulfilment (7Aypoty), and also as a filling full. There 
were types and prophecies shadowing forth the Divine purpose, 
every detail of which must be gone through. 


1 In the Greek Church the Feast of the Transfiguration, Aug. 6th, is called 
7d Ga8epov. The combination in Ps. lxxxix. 12 may be noted. 

2 [n transfiguratione illud principaliter agebatur, ut de cordibus discipulorum 
scandalum crucis tolleretur (Leo the Great, Serm. xliv., Migne, liv. 310). 


252 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (Ix. 31-34. 


It is perhaps to be regretted that RV. retains “‘accomplish,” which is its 
freq. rendering of redevdw (Jn. iv. 34, v. 36; Acts xx. 24; Jn. xvil. 4, etc.), 
instead of substituting “fulfil,” which is its freq. rendering of wAnpbo (xxi. 24, 
xxii. 16, xxiv. 44; Acts i. 16, etc.). And why not ‘‘exodus” here, and 
Heb, xi. 22, and 2 Pet. i. 15, for 2050s ? 

BeBapnpévor drvw, In N.T. only the pass. of this verb is found, and 
the best writers do not use the pres. of either voice. In Mt. xxvi. 43 it is 
used of the eyes of these same three being heavy with sleep: comp. Lk. xxi. 
34; 2 Cor. i. 8, v. 43 1 Tim. v. 16. 


Staypnyopycartes 8é. “But having remained awake” in spite 
of this sleepiness would be the common meaning of the word ;1 
but perhaps here it means “having become thoroughly awake.” 
Syr-Sin. has “when they awoke.” It is a late word, and occurs 
nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Lk. is fond of compounds with 
did :-—Sraywadoxev, SiadéxeoOar, Siarcirew, diadvew, diavepev, dia- 
vuxrepeverv, Starroveta Oat, Siarropety, SuatpaypareverOar, etc. 


As the invention of a later hand these two verses (31, 32) do not explain 
themselves. What is the motive for the invention? As a narrative of facts 
they throw much light on the whole situation. 


33. év 76 SraxwpiferBar avtols dm adtod. “As they were part- 
ing from Him.” This again is in Lk. only, and it explains Peter’s 
remark. His first impulse is to prevent Moses and Elijah from 
going away. He wishes to make present glory and rapture 
permanent. 

etrev 6 Métpos. Mt. and Mk. add dzoxpiOeis. It is his response 
to what he saw. For "Emortdta see on v. 5. He says that “it is 
good for us to be here,” not “‘it is better.” There is no comparison 
with any other condition. The jas probably means the Apostles, 
not all six persons. The Apostles are ready to help in erecting 
the oxyvai. If they were to remain there, they must have shelter. 

py €i8as 6 eye. We need not follow Tertullian in interpret- 
ing this of a state of ecstasy (amentia), as of one rapt into another 
world. Mk. tell us plainly why Peter “‘wist not what to answer,” 
éxpoBor yap éyévovto: and this he would have from Peter himself. 
In any case, neither Peter’s strange proposal nor the comment 
upon it looks like invention. 

84. éyéveto vehedyn Kal émeoklaley attovs. Mt. calls it dwrewy, 
a “luminous cloud.” Here there is perhaps an association of 
ideas, suggested by similarity of sound, between éreoxiafey and 
the Shechinah or 667 mentioned in ver. 31. Comp. éreoxialev 
éxi tyv oKnviav % vepedy (Exod. xl. 29). Strictly speaking a 
luminous cloud cannot overshadow; but it may veil. Light may 
be as blinding as darkness. We cannot be sure whether the aérous 
includes the three Apostles or not. It does not include them in 

41 Comp. racjjs rijs vuxrds . . . diaypyyopioavres (Herodian, iii. 4. 8). 


IX. 34-36.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 253 


ver. 33, and probably does not include them here. The reading 
éxetvous eiceAfciv (A D P R) is meant to exclude the Apostles ; but 
eiceAGciv avrovs (x BCL) is right. See D.Z.? art. “Cloud.” 


35. For dwvy éyéveto see on iii. 22, and comp. Exod. xxxiii. 9, The 
reading ayamrnrés (ACD PR) for éxXeXeypéevos (NBL) comes from Mt. 
and Mk. The Versions are divided, and in many copies of the Aeth. the two 
readings are combined. Syr-Sin. has ‘‘ the chosen.” 


836. év 10 yevéoOar Thy dw. “ After the voice had come” ; 
i.e. when it had ceased: see on iii. 21. Syr-Sin. has “when there 
was the voice.” Peter had wished to make three tabernacles, as 
if Moses and Elijah were to be as abiding as Christ; but now the 
Law and the Prophets pass away, t/a dimissts, quasi jam et officio 
et honore dispunctis (Tertul. Adv. Marcion. iv. 22), and cipé6n 
‘Incods povos. 

kal adtot éolynoav Kal obSevt dmmyyetday ev exelvats Tals Hpepats. 
See on v. 14, on viii. 20, and oni. 39. LK. tells us that they kept 
silent ; Mt. tells us that Jesus charged them to tell no one until 
the Son of Man was risen from the dead. Mk. relates both the 
command and their observance of it. The prohibition to speak 
oi what they had seen is a strong confirmation of the incident as 
an historical fact. Ifthe vision is an invention, how can we ex- 
plain the invention of such a prohibition? ‘The statement of all 
three, that the Transfiguration took place a week after the preced- 
ing incident, the characteristic impulsiveness of Peter, and the 
healing of the demoniac boy immediately afterwards, are marks of 
historical reality. 

But, as in the case of other miracles, while we admit the fact, we must 
remain in ignorance as to the manner. Were Moses and Elijah, who were 
mysteriously removed from the earth, here present in the dody? Or were their 
disembodied sfzrzts made visible? Or was it a mere vision, in which they only 
seemed to be present? We cannot say: the third alternative is not excluded by 
the fact that all three saw it, whereas a mere vision is perceived by only one. 
As Weiss well remarks, ‘‘ We are not here concerned with a vision produced by 
natural causes, but with one sent directly by God” ; and he adds, ‘‘ Our narrative 
presents no stumbling-block for those who believe in divine revelation” (Z. 7. 
ii. pp. 319, 320, Eng. tr. iii. p. 103). The silence of S. John respecting the 
whole incident is thoroughly intelligible. (1) It had already been recorded 
three times ; (2) the glorification of Jesus as the Son of God, which is here set 
forth in a special incident, is set forth by him throughout his whole Gospel. 


édpaxav. With this form of the 3rd pers. plur. perf. comp. Ter7jpyxap 
and éyvwxay (Jn. xvii. 6, 7), elpnxay (Rev. xix. 3), yéyovay (Rev. xxi. 6), 
elceknjAvbay (Jas. v. 4); also Rom. xvi. 7; Col. ii. 1; Rev. xviii. 3. Such 
forms are common in inscriptions and in the Byzantine writers. Win. xiii. 
2. c, p. 90; Gregory, Prolegom. p. 124. In meaning the perfect seems here 
to be passing into the aorist ; Burton, § 88, but see $ 78. 


87-43. The Healing of the Demoniac Boy. Mt. xvii. 14-18; 
Mk. ix. 14-29. In all three this incident is closely connected with 


254 THE GOSPEL ACCORVING TO S. LUKE [IX. 87-40 


the Transfiguration. The moral contrast between the peace and 
glory on the mount and the struggle and failure down below is 
intense, and is magnificently brought out by Raffaelle in the great 
picture of the Transfiguration, which was his last work. The 
combination of the two scenes is fatal to the unity of the subject, 
which is really two pictures in one frame; but it heightens the 
moral and dramatic effect. It is perhaps even more instructive to 
regard it as three pictures. Christ and the saints in glory; the 
chosen three blinded by the light; the remaining nine baffled by 
the powers of darkness. 


The marks of Lk.’s style continue with considerable frequency: éyévero, 
éfjs (ver. 37); Kal ldov, €Bbnoev, Jéouat, povoyerns (38); Kal ido (39) 5 
€denOnv (40); ldcaro (42); mdvres (43). None of these are in the parallel 
passages. See small print on viii. 35-39, 40-48. 


37. TH és tpépa. See on vii. 11. The Transfiguration 
probably took place at night. Lk. alone tells us that the descent 
from the mountain did not take place until next day. Thus the 
three Apostles had time to think over what they had seen and 
heard, before receiving fresh experiences. Lk. omits the con- 
versation about Elijah. Mk., who is here much more full than 
either Lk. or Mt., tells us that this 6xXos modts was gathered round 
the other disciples, with whom scribes were disputing. The 
opportune arrival of Christ caused great amazement. 


38. For éBénoev comp. iii. 4, xviii. 7, 38, and for Soar see on v. 12. 

éwuBAdWar. I aor. inf. act.; not érlBdevat, I aor. imper. mid., a tense 
which perhaps does not occur. It means ‘‘to regard with pity”; i. 48; 
1 Sam. i. 11, ix. 16; Ps. xxiv. 16; Tobit iii. 3, 15; Judith xiii. 4.—For the 
third time Lk. is alone in mentioning that a child is povoyevys: vii. 12, 
viii. 42. Comp. Heb. xi. 17; Tobit iii. 15, viii. 17; Judg. xi. 34. 


89. The three accounts differ in describing the symptoms. Mt. 
has oeAnvidferar cal xaxds eye. Mk. has adpile cat tpile tovs 
ddovtas Kal éypaiverat. In Lk.’s description Hobart (pp. 17-20) 
claims éépvys, peta appod, and pdyts dmoxwpet as medical expres- 
sions, together with the preceding émBépat.! The poys occurs 
here only in N.T. Comp. 3 Mace. vii. 6. But podrs, which is 
found Acts xiv. 18, xxvii. 7, 8, 16; Rom. v. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 18, may 
be the right reading here also (BR etc.). Both pyos and podos 
mean “toil.” The dzoywpeiv means cessation of convulsions. 

40. éSerOyv . . . va. See on iv. 3 and onx. 2. The disciples 
who failed here need not be the Apostles, who were charged to 
cast out demons (ver. 1). If they were, this one failure was 
exceptional (Mk. vi. 12, 13). 

1 Hobart adds, ‘It is worthy of note that Aretzeus, a physician of about St. 
Luke’s time, in treating of Epilepsy, admits the possibility of this disease being 
produced by diabolical agency (S2g. Morb. Diuturn. 27).” 


IX. 41-43.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 255 


41. & yeved dmortos. This probably is neither addressed to the 
disciples, who had failed to cure the lad, nor includes them. It is 
addressed to the father, and includes the multitude. Fer unum 
hominem Judzos arguit infidelitatis (Bede). As in the case of the 
paralytic (v. 20), the faith of those who had charge of the afflicted 
person is taken into account. This is more clearly brought out in 
Mk. It wasa wish to see what the disciples could do, rather than 
faith in Divine power and goodness, which prompted the bringing 
of the boy to them. Possibly it was a wish to see what the 
disciples could zof do that inspired some of them. The hierarchy 
sometimes attacked Jesus through His disciples (Mk. ii. 16, 18, 
24, vii. 5; comp. Lk. xiii. 14). In xii. 46 dmoros means “un- 
faithful,” and in Acts xxvi. 8 “incredible.” 

Kal Sueotpaypcvyn. Not in Mk. It isa strong expression: ‘distorted, 
wrong-headed ” (Acts xx. 30; Phil. ii. 15; Deut. xxxii. 5). Comp. 6 Ouyds 
Epxovras Siactpéper kal rods dplorous dvdpas (Arist. Pol. iii. 16. 5); clot 5” 
ae al Wuxal diecrpappevar [a./. wapeotpap.] THs KaTd gpiow eews (viii. 
7+ 7) 

€ws méte Ecopar pds Suas; The notion is that of being turned 
towards a person for the sake of intercourse; and the question 
implies that Jesus is not of that generation, or that it is alienated 
from Him. Comp. Is. lxv. 2. For €ws more comp. Jn. x. 24; and 
for mpos Spas, apud vos, comp. Mt. xiii. 56; Mk. vi. 3, xiv. 49 ; 
= i. 1, etc. Mt. has pel tuav. Vita Jesu perpetua tolerantia 
Beng.). 


In N.T. and LXX dvéxec@ar has the gen. But in class, Grk., as some- 
times in LXX, we have the acc. after dvéxec@at (Amos iv. 7 ; 4 Mac. xiii. 27). 


42. mpocepxopévou aitod. This is to be understood of the lad’s 
approach to Jesus, not of His approach to the lad. Jesus had just 
said, “ Bring thy son hither.” 

éppngev attov Td Saipdviov. ‘The demon dashed him down.” 
The word is used of boxers knocking down, and of wrestlers 
throwing, an opponent: and some distinguish pycow in this 
sense from pyyvyyr. Comp. Wisd. iv. 19; Herm. Aland. xi. 3; 
Apost. Const. vi. 1. There is also faoow, like dpéoow, in the 
sense of dashing to the ground (Is. ix. 10). The expulsion of the 
demon left the boy in a condition which still required healing. 
Lk. gives each act separately. Comp. Mk. ix. 27. For idoato see 
small print on v. 17 ; and with dwédxev adtév TO watpt adtod, which 
Lk. alone mentions, comp. vii. 15 and viii. 55. 

43. This also is peculiar to Lk., who omits the rebuke to the 
disciples, thus again sparing them. The division of the verses is 
unfortunate, half of ver. 43 belonging to one section and half to 
another. For peyadewotyt. comp. Acts xix. 27; 2 Pet. i. 16: 
Latin texts have magnitudo (Vulg.), magnificentia (e), magnalia (a). 


256 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [TX. 43-45, 


The zdvres in the first half of the verse, and the ravtwy ézi 
waewv in the second half, strongly illustrate Lk.’s fondness for 
mas: see on vil. 35 and xi. 4; and comp. Acts iv. 10, xvii. 30, 
Xxl. 28, xxiv. 3. 

43-45. The Second Announcement of the Passion. Mt. 
xvii. 23; Mk. ix. 31, 32. 

Besides the rdvrwyv and mwaouv, we have as marks of Lk.’s style, 


Oavpafsdyrwy él, the attraction in tactv ols, rpbs after elev (ver. 43), 
and the analytical 7v mapaxexaduppmévoy (ver. 45). See on ii. 33 and iii. 19, 


43. Qaupaldvrwy emt maow ots emote. See small print on ii. 33 and 
ili. 19. The imperfects include more than the preceding incident. 
It was because the people were so constantly in an attitude of 
empty admiration and wonder at His miracles, that Jesus again 
tells the disciples of the real nature of His Messiahship. He is 
not going to reign as an earthly king, but to suffer as a criminal. 


Here d has one of several attempts to reproduce the gen. abs. in Latin : 
omnium autem mirantium. Comp. et cogitantium omnium (ill. 15) ; audien- 
tium autem eorum (xix. If); guorundam dicentium (xxi. 5); acctpientium 
autem eorum (xxiv. 31); hee autem corum loguentium (xxiv. 36). 


44, Odabe ipets cis TA Gta Sudv. “Do ye lay up in your ears,” 
in contrast to the gaping crowd. It perhaps means “Store My 
words in your memories, even if you do not understand them.” 
Or again, “Do not let men’s admiration of My miracles make you 
forget or doubt My declarations. It is into men’s hands that I 
must be delivered.” Comp. dds «és 7a Gra “Incot (Exod. xvii. 14). 
Cod. Am. and other MSS. of Vulg. here have 7” cordibus vestris. 
All Grk. MSS. have «is 7a Gta tuav. This is one of several 
places in which Jerome seems to have had a Grk. text which is no 
longer extant. Comp. evat Petrus (xxii. 55), Aic nos esse (Mk. 
ix. 5), Moses in quo vos speratis (Jn. v. 45); also Jn. vi. 12, vii. 25, 
ix. 38, x. 16. The last (ovd/e, ovile for atAy, rotwvn) is crucial. 

6 yap ulds Tod avOpwmou pédder. The ydp is almost “namely”: 
“‘For what you may believe without doubting is this, that the Son 
of Man,” etc. The mapadisoc%a: perhaps does not refer to the act 
of Judas, but to the Divine will. When His hour was come, the 
plots against Him were allowed to succeed. 

45. iv tapaxexahuppévoy aa attav. A Hebraism, occurring 
here only in N.T. Comp. Ezek. xxii. 26, and the subst. Wisd. 
xvii. 6. More often we have aroxpvmrew dao: x. 21 ; Jer. XXxil. 17 ; 
or kpumrew ad: Mt. xi. 25; Ps. xxxvii. 10. Lk. alone states that 
this ignorance of the disciples was specially ordered for them. 
The iva here has its full telic force. They were not allowed to 
understand the saying then, in order that they might remember it 
afterwards, and see that Jesus had met His sufferiro- with full 
knowledge and free will. Comp. xviii. 34, xxiv. 16. 


IX, 45-47.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 257 


It is strange that this mention of their want of inderstanding should be 
attributed to a wish to abase the Twelve in the interests of S. Paul: for (1) it is 
plainly stated that they were prevented by God from understanding; and (2) 
Mk. mentions their ignorance no less than Lk. We saw above that Lk. omits 
the rebuke for want of faith addressed to the disciples who failed to heal the 
demoniac boy. See on ver. 43 and viii. 24. 


46-50. The Close of the Galilean Ministry. Two Lessons in 
Humility. Mt. xviii. 1-7; Mk. ix. 33-39. We learn from the 
other two that this took place after the return from the neighbour- 
hood of Czsarea Philippi to Capernaum (Mt. xvii. 24; Mk. ix. 33). 
The dispute took place during the journey, the comment on it at 
Capernaum. See notes on xxii. 24-30. 

46. Eionev Sé Siahoyiopds ev adtots. See small print on i. 17 
and vii. 17. It is not necessary to confine the d:adoyocpos to their 
thoughts (see on v. 22), and thus make a difference between Mk. 
and Lk. But the desire of each to be pronounced the superior was 
probably not expressed in the discussion ; and this thought Jesus 
read and rebuked. Bede explains the occasion of the dispute to 
be guia widerant Petrum, Jacobum, et Joannem seorsum ductos in 
montem, secretumgue eis bi aliguod esse creditum. ‘The év aitots, 
“among them,” rather implies that the reasoning did not remain 
unexpressed. 

76 tis dv ety. ‘The question, who perchance might be,” wer 
wohl ware: see on iii. 15 and vi. 11; also Burton, § 179. For 
this use of to see on i. 62, and comp. xix. 48, xxli. 2, 4, 23. 

petLov aitav. Although airy does not here immediately 
follow zis as it does xxii. 24 (see notes), yet doubtless airév is the 
gen. after ris and not after weifwv. Whether anyone outside their 
company was greater than they were, was not a question which 
interested them. The point in dispute was, who among them- 
selves was greater than the rest of them ; who stood nearest to the 
Christ, and had the highest place in the Kingdom (Mt.). The 
question illustrates the want of perception just mentioned (ver. 45). 

47. Tis Kapdias adtay. The discussion in words was, Who is 
the greatest? The thought in their hearts was, Am not I the 
greatest? Will the Master decide? Comp. v. 22, vi. 8. 

émAaBdpevos tradiov. The action indicates that the child 
belongs to Him, is one of His: it represents the humblest among 
His followers. For other instances of Christ’s attitude towards 
children comp. x. 21, xvii. 2, xvili. 16; Mk. x. 15, etc. 


In N.T. and LXX the mid. only of ér:AapBdvw is used, sometimes with 
the acc. (Acts ix. 27, xvi. 19, xviii. 17), sometimes with the gen. (Acts 
xvii. 19, xxi. 30, 33; with gen. always in LXX). Here and xxiii. 26 the 
acc. is probably right (B C D, Orig.), but the reading is uncertain. 


map éaut@. The place of honour. As Jesus was sitting with 
His disciples round Him (Mk. ix. 35), wap’ éavrd would be the 
17 


258 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IX. 47, 48. 


same as & péow aitav (Mt. and Mk.). Syr-Sin. has “ beside 
them.” 


The late tradition, that Ignatius was the child who was thus taken up by our 
Lord, probably arose from a misunderstanding of the name Oeopépos, which 
means ‘‘ bearing God” in himself, and not ‘‘ borne by God” (Qedgopos). Even 
if @edpopos be the right accentuation, we must interpret “‘borne along and 
inspired by God” rather than ‘‘carried in the Divine arms.” ‘The identifica- 
tion was unknown to Eusebius, who does not mention it, and to Chrysostom, 
who states that Ignatius had not even seen Christ (Hom. zz Jen. Mart. iv.). 
It cannot be found earlier than the ninth century (Anastasius Bibliothecarius, 
Migne, cxxix. 42 ; Nicephorus Callistus, #. Z. ii. 35, Migne, cxliii. 848). See 
Lft. Jenatius, i. p. 27, il. p. 22. 

48. In this saying of Christ there is again (comp. vv. 23, 24) 
almost exact verbal agreement in the three reports. 

TodTo 76 maiSiov. Or any similar little one, év 2. rovodro (Mt.), 
év tév rowvtTwv a. (Mk.). The child is not the type of the 
honoured disciple ; but the honoured disciple is he who welcomes 
little children, not because he is fond of children, but because 
they belong to Christ. 

émlt T@ dvépati pov. “On the basis of My Name.” He knows 
that he is dealing with something which concerns Christ and 
belongs to Him, and he welcomes it for Christ’s sake. The 
phrase is specially common in Lk. (ver. 49, xxi. 8, xxiv. 47; Acts 
iv. 17, 18, v. 28, 40, xv. 14; comp. Lk. i. 59); not in Jn. or 
Paul. 

ewe Séxerar. . . eve S&q7ar. The pronoun is emphatic. 

6 yap pixpdtepos, x.7.A. Not in Mk. or Mt. It explains how 
it is that to welcome a child for Christ’s sake is to welcome the 
Father, for promotion in the Kingdom depends upon self-abase- 
ment. Both 6 pixpotepos and péyas are objective; really in a 
lowly position, really exalted. He who does the humble work of 
serving the insignificant is promoted by God. It is the chief 
proof of the Messiah’s presence that the foor have the Gospel 
preached to them (vii. 22). 

év wacw Spav. “Among you all.” The circle of the disciples 
is the sphere in which this holds good. For émdpxwv see on 
viii. 41 and xxiii. 50. 

éotw péyas. Already ipso facto “is great”; not merely éorat 
(AD). Jesus does not say “is the greatest”; and He thus gives 
no encouragement to the desire to be above others. It is possible 
for all in the Kingdom to have this greatness, and there is no 
need for anyone to measure himself against others. The standard 
is Christ. 


Syr-Sin, reads, ** He that is small and is a child to you, that one is great.” 


49, 50. A Second Lesson in Humility, the Humility of Tolera- 
tion. Mk, ix. 38-40. ‘The dzroxpiOets in ver. 49 shows that there 


IX. 49,50.) | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 259 


is connexion: with what precedes, but the precise link is not 
certain. The common explanation, that Christ’s évi r@ évdéuari pov 
suggests to John’s mind the case of the stranger who cast out 
demons é 7@ évdyary, is possible. But it is perhaps more likely 
that Christ’s declaration about the blessedness of giving a welcome 
to the humblest of His followers has aroused misgivings in John’s 
mind. His words are those of one who defends his conduct, or at 
least excuses it, and might be paraphrased, “ But the principle just 
laid down must have limits, and would not apply to the case 
which I mention”; or, “ But one who remains outside our body 
is not really a follower of Thee, and therefore ought not to receive 
a welcome.” John does not mean that the man was not an 
Apostle, but that he was not a professed disciple. Jealousy for 
the credit of their Master, not jealousy for their own prerogatives, 
prompted the Apostles! to forbid this man from making use of the 
Name. : 

The reading év 7@ dvduarl cov (§ BL X AZ 1 33 69) is to be preferred to 
ent ef év. (ACD), and is not to be discarded because it is also found in Mk. 
ix. 38. 

49. *Emortdta, cidapév twa. See on v. 5 and 26. Mk. has 
Avddoxade. The exorcist was not pretending to bea disciple of 
Jesus when he was not one. But, in however faulty a way, he 
believed in the power of the name of Jesus, and tried to make 
use of it for good (Acts iii. 6, xvi. 18). Contrast the mere 
jugglery of the Jewish exorcists who tried to use the formula “Opxifw 
tas Tov “Incotv dv IavAos xypvooe as a charm (Acts xix. 13-16). 
Here the context shows that the exorcist was successful, and 
therefore sincere. The éxw\towev may mean either “we tried to 
forbid” or “we repeatedly forbade.” The pres. dxohou@et implies 
persistence in such conduct. For dxoAovdeiy pera twos comp. 
Rey. vi. 8, xiv. 13: the constr. is classical. 

50. Mi) kwddete. “Cease to forbid,” not only the person in 
question, but any such. Comp. vii. 13 and the reply of Moses 
to the demand of Joshua, Kipue Mwvoy, xwAvcov aizovs (Num. 
xi. 29). 

8s yap otk éorw Kab? Spay bwép Sudv éotivy, The reading 
7pGv for duGv in one or both of these places comes from Mk. 
The saying, “ He that is not with Me is against Me” (xi. 23, where 
see note; Mt. xii. 30) should be compared with this. There 
Christ gives a test by which His disciple is to try Aimse/f: if 
he cannot see that he is on Christ’s side, he is against Him. 
Here He gives a test by which His disciple is to try others: if he 


Tt is possible that only John and one other were concerned in éxwdvouev. 
The incident may have taken place while the Twelve were working two and 
two. John’s companion was probably James, and this may be another illustra- 
tion of the brothers’ fiery temper (ver. 54). 


Sf 


260 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (rx. 50, 


cannot see that they are against Christ’s cause, he is to consider 
them as for it. Renan hastily pronounces the two sayings to be 
tout a fait oppostes (V. de J. p. 229). 

Here the fourth and last division (ix. 1-50) of the section 
which treats of the Ministry in Galilee (iv. 14-ix. 50) comes to an 
end, and with it the first main portion of the Third Gospel. The 
solemn maxim stated in ver. 50 makes a good conclusion to the 
Galilean ministry, and the narrative manifestly makes a new be- 
ginning in ver. 51. 


IX. 51-XIX. 28. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS 
JERUSALEM. 


We may regard this asa narrative of the second main period 
of Christ’s ministry. Galilee, with Capernaum as a centre, ceases 
to be the almost exclusive sphere of His teaching, and we may 
say that henceforward He has no centre. Although this period 
is only one-third as long as the preceding one, it is described with 
much greater minuteness, and the narrative of it is nearly one- 
third longer. It is manifest that Lk. is here employing material 
which was not used by Mk. or Mt., and we know neither its source 
nor its character. A great deal of it must have been either in 
writing or stereotyped in an oral form; and a great deal of it 
, would seem to have had an Aramaic original, the translation of 
which abounds in marks of Lk.’s own style. From ix. 51 to xviii. 
14 he is almost alone, and he gives us information which we obtain 
from no other source. Hence this large tract is sometimes called 
the “great interpolation” or “intercalation.” It is also the 
“ Pereean section” or “Samaritan section” (comp. ix. 51-56, x. 
30-37, xvii. 11-19). An analysis, showing the parallels in Mt, is 
given in Birks, Hore Evang. pp. 132 ff. Jn. gives us several im- 
portant incidents belonging to the same period, viz. that which 
lies between the end of the Galilean ministry and the Passion; 
but we cannot be certain as to the way in which his narrative is 
to be fitted into that of Lk. 


If we had only Mt. and Mk., we might suppose that the journey from 
Capernaum to Jerusalem for the last Passover occupied at most one or ‘two 
weeks. Few incidents are mentioned ; and, where distances are indicated, not 
much time is required for traversing them. Lk. lets us see that the time 
occupied must have been several months. We are constantly reminded that 
Jesus is on His way to Jerusalem (ix. 51, 53, xiii. 22, 33, xvil. II, xviil. 31, 
xix. II, 28), but the progress is slow, because Jesus frequently stops to preach 


IX. 51.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 261 


in different places. The direction of the journeying is only indirectly inti- 
mated, first eastwards along the southern part of Galilee, and then southwards 
through Pereea ; but, however long the time, and however circuitous the route, 
it is a journey from Capernaum to Jerusalem. Jesus seems never to have re- 
turned to the neighbourhood of the lake until after His death. Jn. lets us 
know that during this interval Jesus was twice in Jerusalem ; once at the latter 
part of the Feast of Tabernacles, after which He healed the man born blind ; 
and again at the Feast of the Dedication ; besides which there is the visit to 
Bethany for the raising of Lazarus; but, although there is room in Lk.’s 
narrative for what Jn. tells, we do not know where to place it. We cannot 
with any certainty show the correspondence between the two Gospels until 
Jerusalem is entered for the last Passover. It seems best, therefore, not to 
follow Wieseler (Chron. Syn. iv., Eng. tr. pp. 289-303), Ellicott (Az/sean 
Lectures for 1859, pp. 242-343), and in the main Caspari (Chron. Ezn/. § 126- 
143, Eng. tr. pp. 167-189), in making Lk. narrate three distinct journeys to 
eae beginning respectively at ix. 51, xiii. 22, and xvii. 11, but to take 
is narrative with the indistinctness which he has left. That the journeyings 
which Jn. has so clearly given really took place, we need not doubt; and 
nothing in Lk. contradicts Jn.’s narrative; but all interweaving of the two 
Gospels must be taken as merely tentative arrangement. The thoroughness of 
Lk.’s investigation is once more shown by his giving us eight or nine long 
chapters of material which is given by no one else; while his honesty is con- 
spicuous in the fact of his not attempting a precision which he did not find in 
his sources. The whole is largely didactic. 

‘The proposal of Halcombe, to transfer the whole of Lk. xi. 14-xiii. 21 
from the place which it occupies in a// MSS. and Versions to the break between 
Vili. 21 and 22, is too violent < method of arriving at harmony (Gospel Dijfi- 
cultzes, or the Displaced Sectzon of S. Luke, Camb. 1886). The amount of 
harmony obtained in this way is trifling (Lk. xi. 14-26 with Mt. xii. 22 and 
Mk. iii. 22-30, and perhaps Lk. xiii. 18, 19 with Mt. xiii. 31, 32 and Mk. iv. 
30-32), and it is simpler to suppose that Lk. xi. 14-26 and xiii. 18, 19 are 
given out of their chronological order, or that the sayings of Christ there 
recorded were uttered more than once. 


The historical truth of this independent pe.tion of Lk.’s 
Gospel is guaranteed (1) by the absence of discrepancy with 
the other Gospels, but chiefly (2) by the fact that it consists 
almost entirely of discourses which it would have been altogether 
beyond Lk.’s powers to invent. For convenience we may divide 
this long section into three parts: ix. 51—xiii. 35, xiv. 1-xvii. ro, 
xvil. 11-xix. 28. See Herzog, PRE.’ art. Jesus Christ, p. 659. 


IX. 51-XIIL. 35. Zhe Departure from Galilee and First 
Period of the Journey. 


This section begins, as the previous one ends, with a lesson ot 
toleration. In the one case the Apostles were taught that they 
were not to take upon themselves to hinder the work of an 
apparent outsider who seemed to be friendly. Here they are 
taught not to take upon themselves to punish professed outsiders 
who are manifestly unfriendly. Moreover, as the ministry in 
Galilee is made to begin with a typical rejection of Christ at 


262 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |IX. 6L 


Nazareth (iv. 16-30), so this ministry outside Galilee begins with 
a rejection of Him by Samaritans. 


The thoroughly Hebrew cast of the opening sentence seems to show that 
the source here used was either an Aramaic original which Lk. translated, or a 
translation from the Aramaic which he modified. 


As marks of his style note éyévero, év T@ ¢. injfin., cunTAnpovc Oat, 
Tas huépas THs dvadhupews, kal avrés, rod ¢c. tnfin. (ver. 51); éd¢§- 
avTo, iv wopevdmevoy (ver. 53) 


51-56. § Rejection by the Samaritans and Rebuke to the 
Disciples. Here we have what was perhaps a new departure in 
our Lord’s method, viz. the sending messengers in advance to 
prepare for His arrival. The Baptist had prepared the way for 
Christ’s work as a whole, but he had not gone beforehand to the 
places which Christ proposed to visit. The shortness of the time 
which still remained may have made a system of preparatory 
messengers necessary; and this is perhaps the meaning of the 
opening words. 

51. év 73 cupmAnpotcbar tas fuépas. “When the days were 
being fulfilled”; ze. when the number of days allotted to the 
interval was drawing to a close. The verb occurs in N.T. only 
viii. 23 and (exactly as here) Acts ii, 1, but with ovv7A. for 
ouprd. See Gregory, Prolegom. p. 74. Comp. eis cvprAypwow, 
2 Chron. xxvi. 21; Dan. ix. 2 (Theod.). For the constr. see on 
iii. 21; and for “the days of” see on i. 39. See also on i. 57. 

THs dvadnppews adtod. ‘Of His assumption,” ze. the Ascen- 
sion. 


The substantive dvdAnuyis does not occur elsewhere in N.T. or LXX. But 
in Zest. X77. Patr. Levi xviii. it is found, and in this sense, of the new Priest 
who is to be magnified in the world @ws dvad7jWews atrod. In Ps. Sol. iv. 20 
it is used in a neutral sense of mere removal from the world. The wicked 
man is to have his old age in the solitude of childlessness until he be taken 
away (els dvdAnyw); which is perhaps the first appearance of the word in 
extant Greek literature. See Ryle and James, ad foc. They show that this 
neutral sense is exceptional, and that about the time when S. Luke wrote the 
word was probably becoming a sort of technical term for the ‘* Assumption of 
the Blessed.” runt enim a morte et receptione mea usgue ad adventum 
illius tempora cel que fiunt (Assupt. Moszs, x. 12). Comp. Zt videbunt qui 
recepti sunt omnes, qui mortem non gustaverunt a nativitate sua (4 Est. 
vi. 26); Luztium verborum Esdre priusguam assumeretur (Inscription at 4 Esr. 
viii. 20); Z¢ zw ezs raptus est Zsvas e¢ assumptus est zm” locum similium 
ejus (4 Esr. xiv. 49). See also the passage in which Enoch describes his own 
translation (Ixx. I, 2). The verb dveAjudpén is freq. in N.T., and may be 
called the usual biblical expression for ascending to heaven: Mk. xvi. 19; 
Acts i. 2, 11, 22, x. 16; 1 Tim. iii. 16; comp. 1 Mac. ii. 58; Ecclus. xlviii. 9, 
xlix. 14; 2 Kings ii. II. 

The proposal of Wieseler and Lange to make dvaA7juyis mean His ‘‘ac- 
ceptance among men” (whether among the Galileans in particular or among 
Israel in general) is not worthy of much consideration. See Trench, Studzes 
in the Gospels, p. 215; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v.; Oosterzee, ad loc. 


TX. 51-54,.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 263 


13 mpdowroy éompicev, A Hebraism: comp. Jer. xxi. 10; 
Ezek. vi. 2, xiii. 17, xv. 7, xx. 46, xxi. 2, xxv. 2, etc. See Gesenius, 
Thes. p. 1109, on the same form of expression in Syriac, Arabic, 
Turkish, and Persian. It implies fixedness of purpose, especially 
in the prospect of difficulty or danger: comp. Is. 1. 7. The form 
eornpioer for éeornprfey is late; for reff. see Veitch, so. For ted 
mopevecOar see On ii. 24. 

52. dréotethey Gyyédous. It is vain to speculate who these 
were. Probably it was a new measure; but perhaps was no more 
than a temporary precaution, owing to the probability of unfriendly 
treatment in Samaritan territory. See on aréoradxey, iv. 18. 

mpd tmpoodmou attod. Another Hebraism: comp. vii. 27, x. 1; 
Exod. xxxli. 34, Xxxill. 2, xxxiv. 6; Lev. xvill. 24; Num. xxxiii. 
Ea Denk £24, etc. 

Lapapertoy, Jesus is taking the direct route from Galilee to 
Judea. This is the first mention of the Samaritans by Lk. 
Comp. x. 33, xvil. 16; Mt. x. 5; Jn. iv. 9, 39, vill. 48; Acts viii. 
25. Mk. does not mention them. For the more important 
treatises in the copious literature on the subject see Schiirer, 
Jewish People, ii. 1, p. 5; Herzog, PRE.” xiii. pp. 351-355; 
Schaff’s Herzog,’ iv. p. 2104; Hausrath, Vv. 7. Times, i. pp. 14-273 
Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. pp. 394-403, Hist. of J. NV. p. 249. 


@s érousdoat aito. This (NB), and not dove, seems to be the true 
reading. Comp. Acts xx. 24, if ds TeAe@cat is right there: also 3 Mac. 
i. 2; 4 Mac. xiv. 1. Purpose is implied. No case of ws ¢. zjin. denoting 
result is found in N.T. Burton, § 372. 


B3. otk ed€favtro adtév, St. The feeling was reciprocal. 
Some Jews taught that a Samaritan’s bread was as defiling as 
swine’s flesh: comp. Jn. iv. 9, 20. The fact that He was on His 
way to keep a feast at Jerusalem, thus repudiating the Samaritan 
temple on Mount Gerizim, increased the animosity of the 
Samaritans. Jos. Az. xx. 6.1; B. J. ii. 12. 3-7; Vita, 52; 
Wetst. on Jn. iv. 20. 

76 Tpdcwrov adtod fv wopeudpevov. Another Hebraism: comp. 
2 Sam. xvii. 11. Galileans in journeying to Jerusalem often went 
round by Perza, in order to avoid the churlishness of the 
Samaritans: and this our Lord may possibly have done after this 
attempt to bring Jews and Samaritans together as guests and 
hosts had failed. The hospitality which He had received at 
Sychar many months before this (Jn. iv. 40) would not abolish 
the prejudices of a/7 Samaritan towns and villages for ever. 

54. iSdvres S€. They saw the messengers returning from their 
fruitless errand. Their recent vision of Elijah on the mount may 
have suggested to them the calling down fire from heaven. The 
two brothers here, and perhaps also in ver. 49, show their fiery 


264 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [EX. 54-86. 


temper as “sons of thunder.” Yet Lk., who alone gives this 
illustration of the title, does not give the title itself (Mk. iii. 1). 
Quid mirum filios tonitrui fulgurare voluisse? (Ambrose). 


OXers etraev. For the constr. comp. xviii. 41, xxii. 9; Mt. xx. 32° 
Mk. x. 51: Soph. 0.7. 650. In class. Grk. this constr. is more common 
with BovAouat ; but in N.T. @é\w is about five times as frequent as BovAopat, 
which in mod. Grk. has almost gone out of use. Note that va, which some- 
times follows @éAw, is not inserted when the first verb is in the second person 
and the second verb in the first person. Win. xli. 4. b, p. 356; Burton, 
§ 171. Syr-Sin. has *f Our Lord” for Kupte. 

The words ws xat ‘Has érolncev (AC DX ete.) are probably a gloss. 
That they were omitted (§ BL) because some Gnostics used them to 
disparage the O.T., or because they seem to make Christ’s rebuke to the 
disciples a condemnation of Elijah, is not probable. Rendel Harris thinks 
that the insertion is due to Marcionite influence both in this case and the 
next (Study of Codex Bezx, p. 233, in Texts and Studies, ii. 1). There is 
less doubt about xal elev Ovx oldare molov mvetuards éore (DF K M etc); 
and least of all about 6 yap vids rod dvOpHmov otk HAOev Wuxas avOpbruv 
amodéoat G\Aad oGoat (F KM etc.). These two may safely be admitted as 
later additions to the text. In the last of them there are several variations 
in the witnesses which insert the words. Some omit ydp, some omit 
avOpmHmwy, and some have dzoxreivar for dwéd\eoat. WH. ii. App. pp. 59, 
60; Sanday, App. ad N.T. pp. 118, 119. 

It is quite possible that Ov« oidure rolov mvetuards éore is a genuine 
saying of Christ, although no part of this Gospel. The remainder, 6 yap 
ulds, K.T.A., may be an adaptation of Mt. v. 17 and [xviii. 11] (comp. Lk. xix. 
10), and could more easily have been constructed out of familiar materials. 

For other instances of what may be Marcionite influence upon the text 
see iv. 16 and xxiii. 2. 


55. otpadgels 8¢. “‘ But (instead of assenting to their proposal) 
He turned.” He was in front, and the disciples were following 
Him. Syr-Sin. omits otpadeds as well as the three clauses. 

56. émopedOnoay eis Erépay kdpnv. Although érépay might very 
well mean a village of another £zzd, yet the probability is that it 
does not mean a non-Samaritan village. The difference lay in its 
being friendly and hospitable. There is no intimation that Jesus 
abandoned His plan of passing through Samaria and turned back 
to go round by Persea. Moreover, to have gone away from all the 
Samaritans, because one Samaritan village had proved inhospitable, 
might have encouraged the intolerant spirit which He had just 
rebuked. With Hahn, Baur, Schenkel, and Wieseler we may 
assume that this other village was Samaritan also, although there 
is a strong consensus of opinion the other way. 

57-62. Three Aspirants to Discipleship warned to count the 
cost. In part also in Mt. viii. 19-22. The section is well 
summarized in the chapter-heading in AV. ‘“ Divers would follow 
Him, but upon conditions.” The first two instances are common 
to-Lk. and Mt.; the third is given by Lk. alone. But Mt. has 
the first two in quite a differ * ‘ace, in connexion with the 


IX. 57, 58.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 265 


crossing to the country of the Gadarenes (viii. 19-22). Lk. con- 
nects the three instances with the final departure from Galilee and 
with the mission of the Seventy. That he understands these 
aspirants to be three of the Twelve is manifestly incorrect (vi. 13) ; 
and it is uncertain whether he regards all three incidents as having 
taken place at one and the same time. It is probable that they 
were grouped together because of their similarity, and perhaps 
were already so grouped in the source which both Mt. and Lk. 
seem to have used. 

57. Kat mopevopevwy attav. The most natural, though not 
certain, reference is to the preceding éropeVOycav «is érépay Kkdpyy. 
But it may almost equally well refer to ropeveoGar cis “IepovcaAnp 
(ver. 1), and quite possibly to some journey otherwise unmen- 
tioned. 


For the simple cal (§ BCL XZ) ATAATI etc. have éyévero dé, and f 
Vulg. factum est autem; while D has xat éyévero, and acde ef factum est. 


év 7H 636. Like xAacpdrwv (ver. 17) and xara povas (ver. 18), 
these words can be taken either with what precedes or what 
follows. The Vulgate is as ambiguous as the Greek : ambulantibus 
illis in via dixit quidam ad illum. Beza has guidam in via dixerit ; 
but Luther and all English Versions take the words with what 
precedes. Comp. iv. 1, v. 24, vi. 18, Vili. 15, 39, x. 18, xi. 39, etc. 

einév tis. Mt. has els ypaypareds etrev. The man had been a 
hearer, and now proposes to become a permanent disciple, no 
matter whither Jesus may lead him. To restrict the énou éay 
amépxyn to the journey then in progress, or to the different routes 
to Jerusalem (Schleierm.), is very inadequate. On the other 
hand, there is no sign that the man thinks that he is making-a 
very magnificent offer. His peril lies in relying on his feelings 
at a moment of enthusiasm. 


Here, as in Jn. viii. 21, 22, xiii. 33, 36, xviii. 20, xxi. 18, we have S:2ov 
for do, a word which does not occur in bibl. Grk. 

WH. have eddy (ABCKLU& 33 60) in their small ed., with Lach. 
Treg. In the large ed. they have dv (ND), with Tisch, RV. ‘‘Pre- 
dominantly dy is found after consonants, and édv after vowels; but there are 
many exceptions” (ii. App. p. 173). 

The xvpie after dwépyp (ACT AATI, fqé Syr. Goth.) may safely be 
omitted (§ BD L 2, ac Vulg. Syr-Sin. Boh. Arm.), 


58. At dddiexes dweods Exouowv. Jesus knows the measure of 
the scribe’s enthusiasm. He also knows whither He Himself is 
going, viz. to suffering and to death. He warns him of privations 
which must be endured at once. The scribe was accustomed to 
a comfortable home ; and that must be sacrificed : comp. xviii. 22 ; 
Mt. xx. 22. For other cases in which Jesus checked emotional 
impulsiveness see xi. 27 and xxii. 33. Foxes and birds are 


are 


266 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [IX. 58, 59. 


mentioned, not as representatives of the whole animal world, but 
as creatures which lead a vagabond life. Comp. Plut. 776. Grac. ix. 


Judg. xv. 4 the form dd\wrpxas is well attested: @wdeds occurs nowhere 
else in bibl. Grk. excepting Mt. viii. 20, where see Wetst. for illustrations of 
the use of the word for lairs of animals. Syr-Sin.-inserts “‘ Verily ” here. 


katackynveécers. Lit. encampings,” and so “encampments, 
abodes.” Therefore “roosts” would be better than “nests.” 
Only for a short time in each year does a bird have a nest. 
Here Vulg. has zzdos, in Mt. tabernacula (with nidos in many 
MSS.). Here d has haditacula. In both places many texts add 
to nidos the gloss ubi reguiescant. In Ezek. xxxvil. 27 and Wisd. 
ix. 8 xatackyjvwors (tabernaculum) is used of Jehovah encamping 
among His people: comp. Tob. i. 4 and Ps. SoZ. vii. 5. 

ouk €xet 100 Thy Kedhahhy Kdtivy. Not because of His poverty, 
but because of the wandering life which His work involved, a 
life which was now more unsettled than ever. Nazareth had cast 
Him out; of His own choice He had left Capernaum ; Samari- 
tans had refused to receive Him: in the intervals of necessary 
rest He had no home.! For the constr. see xii. 17. 

59. Eimev 8€ mpds érepov. Mt. tells us that this man was €repos 
Tov pabytay, t.e. one of the casual disciples, who is now invited to 
become a permanent follower. 


Quite without reason Clem. Alex, identifies him with Philip, probably 
meaning the Evangelist (Strom. iii. 4. 522, ed. Potter). So also Hilgenfeld, 
who identifies the scribe of ver. 57 with Bartholomew. Lange would make 
this second case to be the desponding Thomas, and the scribe to be Judas 
Iscariot (Z. /. ii. p. 144, Eng. tr.) Keim more reasonably remarks that it is 
futile to attempt to discover the names by mere sagacity (/es. of Vas. iii 
p. 270). 


*Emitpepov pot mp@tov dmedOdvtt Oda tov matépa pov. The 
most obvious meaning is the best. His father is 2” extremis ot 
has just died, and the funeral will take place almost immediately 
(Acts v. 6, 10). Perhaps Jesus can wait; or he may be allowed 
to follow later, after he has performed the sacred duty of burial 
(Gen. xxv. 9; Tobit iv. 3). “I must first bury my father” is an 
almost brutal way of saying, “I cannot come so long as my father 
is alive”: and to have put off following Jesus for so indefinite a 
period would have seemed like unworthy trifling. Yet Grotius and 
Hase (Gesch. Jesu, § 41) adopt this. 


The xtpie before émirpeyov is of doubtful authority, and may come from 
Mt. viii. 21: om. B* DV, Syr-Sin. For the attraction in dmeA@dv7u see on 


1 Plutarch represents Tiberius Gracchus as saying: 7a pév Onpla Ta Tip 
"Trandiay veudpeva kal pwredy exet, kal Kovratoy early atradv éExdorTw kai kaTaducers* 
rots dé Urép TIS "Iradlas paxouévas Kal amobvyioKkovow déoos Kat purds, dA\ov dé 
ovdevos, LETETTLY. 


{X. 59-61.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 267 


iii, 19. Mt. has dwedOeiv xal 6dyat. In vy. 59 and 60 Lk, has his favourite 
elev &é, which Mt. has in neither place. 


60. “Ades tods vexpods Adyar tods éauTav vexpovs. Comp. 
viii. 51. The apparent harshness and obscurity of the saying is 
a guarantee for its authenticity. ‘Leave the spiritually dead to 
bury their own dead.” There will always be plenty of people who 
have never received or have refused the call to a higher life; and 
these can perform the ordinary duties of the family and of society. 
These lower duties are suitable to them,—rovs éavrdv vexpovs. 
For a similar change of meaning from the figurative to the literal 
comp. Jn. v. 21-29, where vv. 21-27 refer to spiritual resurrection 
from sin, vv. 28, 29 to actual resurrection from the grave; also Jn. 
xi. 25, 26, where “die” is used in a double manner. To take 
vexpovs in both places as figurative, implies that the father is 
spiritually dead. To take vexpovs in both places as literal, gives 
the harsh meaning, “ Leave the dead to take care of themselves.” 

This disciple needs to be told, not of the privations of the 
calling, but of its lofty and imperative character. The opportunity 
must be embraced directly it comes, or it may be lost; and 
therefore even sacred duties must give way to it. Moreover, like 
the high priest (Lev. xxi. 11) and the Nazirite (Num. vi. 6, 7), his 
life will be a consecrated one, and he must not “make himself 
unclean for his father or for his mother.” Comp. Mt. x. 37; 
Ezek. xxiv. 16. By the time that the funeral rites were over. and 
he cleansed from pollution, Jesus would be far away, and he 
might have become unwilling to follow Him. 

od Sé dreNOdy Sidyyehe 7. B. t. ©. Mt. omits this charge. 
Clem. Alex., quoting from memory, substitutes for it the pre- 
ceding charge, od 6€ axoAovGe por (loc. cit.). Word by word, it 
forms a contrast to the man’s request; dze\Odv to dmeAOdvtt, 
SiayyeAre to Odwar, rHv Bacirciay to Tov warépa, Tod Meod to pov. 
“Depart, not home, but away from it; not to bury, but to spread 
abroad; not a father, but the Kingdom; not thine own, but 
God’s.” The ov is emphatic: “ But t4ou, who art not a vexpos.” 
Jesus recognizes in him a :tue disciple, in spite of his hesitation; 
and the seeming sternness of the refusal is explained. For 
SudyyeAde, “publish everywhere,” comp. Acts xxi. 26; Rom. 
ix. 17; Ps. ii. 7, lviii. 17; 2 Mac. iii. 34. Vulg. has adnuntia; d, 
predica: divulga would be better than either. 

61. cimey 5é Kai Erepos. This third case is not given by Mt., 
and it probably comes from a different source. On account of its 
similarity it is grouped with the other two. 

Godet regards it as combining the characteristics of the other two, Ce? 
homme s‘offre de lui-ménte, comme le premier ; mats il temporése, comme le 


second, Lange takes the three as illustrations of the sanguine, melancholy, and 
phlegmatic temperaments, and thinks that this third may be Matthew- 


268 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |IX. 61, 62. 


dmotdgac0ar tots eis Tov otkdy pov. “To set myself apart from, 
bid farewell to, them that are at my house* The case of Elisha 
(1 Kings xix. 20) may have been in the man’s mind. His heart 
is still with the past. He must enjoy it just once more before he 
gives it up. Levi had done what this man wished to do, but ina 
different spirit. He gave a farewell entertainment for his old 
associates, but in order to introduce them to Christ. The banquet 
was given to Him (v. 29). This man wants to leave Christ in 
order to take leave of his friends. 


In N.T. dmrordocev occurs only in the middle: xiv. 33; Acts xviii. 18, 
21; Mk. vi. 46; 2 Cor. ii. 13: abrenunciare (d), renuncéare (Vulg.). 
Comp. dmrorakduevos T@ Bly (Ign. Phzlad. xi.); of dmordéduevor TS Kbou™ 
tovTw (Act. Paul. et Thec. v.). The more classical expression would be 
domaferbatl tia (Eur. Zo. 1276; Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 2). Comp. also the use 
of venunciare with a dative: omnzbus advocationibus renunciavé (Plin. Zp. 
ii. 1. 8); xox multum abfuct quin vite renunciaret (Suet. Gal. xi.). In 
eccles. Grk. dmoray7, diérakis, doratla are used of renunciation of the 
world. See Suicer, drordocopat. 

Tots eis Tov otxkdy pov. The ois is masc. with els as a pregn. constr. : 
“to go to my house and bid farewell to those in it.” Comp. Acts viii. 40; 
Esth. i. 5; and see Win. 1. 4. b, p. 516. Many texts of Vulg. make 7ois 
neut.; venunczare his gue domt sunt; but Cod. Am. and Cod. Brix. have 
gut. He would have no need to go home to take leave of his possessions. 
But even if rots be taken as neut. it is very doubtful whether daordtac@at 
Tols, K.T.A., cap mean “‘to set in order the things,” etc., as the Berlenburger 
Bible takes it. Tertullian has ¢erteum cllum prius suis valedicere parentem 
prohibet retro respectare (Adv. Marcion. iv. 23). Comp. Clem. Hom. xi. 36, 
xii. 23. 


62. émPaov thy xelpa én’ Gpotpov kat Bdérwv eis TA dtricw. 
A proverb: 6s épyov pederav iBeinv « atAax’ éAavvor pyKere mam- 
talvov pel? duydixas, add’ emt Epyw Oupov éxwv (Hes. Opp. 443). 
Pliny says that a ploughman who does not bend attentively over 
his work goes crooked : mst tncurvus prevaricatur ; inde translatur 
hoc crimen in forum (NV. H. xviii. 19. 49). With Bdémov eis ta 
dnicw comp. xvil. 31; Jn. vi. 66, xvili. 6; Phil. ii. 14; also py 
repBrépys cis TA dwiow and éwéBrcpev 4 yuvy airod cis Ta Otricw 
(Gen. xix. 17, 26). 
D and some Lat. texts have els ra dmlow Bdérwv cal émtBdd\wy TH 
xelpa abrod ém’ dporpév. For a similar inversion see xxii. 42. 


eWOerés éotw TH Bactdela Tod Geos. Literally, “is well-placed,” 


and so, “useful, fit, for the Kingdom of God”; fit to work in it 
as a disciple of Christ, rather than fit to enter it and erjoy it. 
When used of time «’Oeros means “seasonable” (Ps. xxxi 6; 
Susan. 15). It was a Pythagorean precept, His 76 tepov eT EpXOLEVOS 
py émurtpépov, which Simplicius in his commentary on Epictetus 
explains as meaning that a man who aspires to God ought not to 
_ be of two minds, nor to cling to human interests. Jesus says to 
this man neither “ Follow Me” (v. 27) nor “ Return to thy house” 


IX. 62-X.16.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 269 


(viii. 39), but “I accept no lukewarm service” (Rev. iii. 16). For 
the constr. comp. Heb. vi. 7, and contrast xiv. 35. 

Hahn thinks that this third follower, of whom Lk. alone tells us, may 
possibly be the Evangelist himself, and that this would account for his hence- 
forward telling us so much which no one else records. He combines this 
conjecture with the hypothesis that Lk. was one of the Seventy, the diffi- 
culties of which have been discussed in the Introduction, § 2, 


X. 1-16. §The Mission of the Seventy. The number was 
significant in more ways than one, and we have no means of de- 
termining which of its various associations had most to do with 
its use on this occasion. (1) Zhe Seventy Elders, whom God 
commanded Moses to appoint, and who were endowed with the 
spirit of prophecy, to help Moses to bear the burden of the people 
in judging and instructing them: Num. xi. 16, 17, 24, 25. (2) 
The number of the Nations of the Earth, traditionally supposed to 
be seventy: Gen. x. (3) Zhe Sanhedrin, which probably con- 
sisted of seventy members and a president, in imitation of Moses 
and the seventy Elders.} 

That Jesus should have followed the number given to Moses, 
in order to suggest a comparison between the two cases, is 
probable enough. ‘That He should have used the tradition about 
the number of Gentile nations, in order to point out the special 
character of this mission, viz. to others besides the Jews, is also 
not improbable.? So far as we can tell, the Seventy were sent out 
about the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. The number of 
bullocks offered during the Feast was seventy in all, decreasing 
from thirteen on the first day to seven on the last: and, according 
to the Talmud, “There were seventy bullocks to correspond to 
the number of the seventy nations of the world” (Edersh. Zze 
Temple, p. 240; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on Jn. vii. 37). It was 
about this time that Jesus had declared, “Other sheep I have, 
which are not of this fold: them also I must lead, and they shall 
hear My voice” (Jn. x. 16). The connexion of the mission of 
the Seventy with this thought cannot be regarded as unlikely. It 
is much less probable that the number was meant “to suggest the 
thought that the seventy disciples were placed by Him in a position 
of direct contrast” with the Sanhedrin. : 


The account of the appointment of the Seventy to minister to all without 
distinction, like the account of the appointment of the Seven to minister to 


1 That the Jews regarded seventy as the normal number for a supreme court or 
council is shown by the conduct of Josephus, who in organizing Galilee ‘‘ chose 
out seventy of the most prudent men, and those elders in age, and appointed 
them to be rulers of all Galilee” (B. 7. ii. 20. 5; Veta, 14); and also of the 
Zealots at Jerusalem, who set up a tribunal of seventy chief men, to take the 
place of the courts which they had suppressed (2. /. iv. 5. 4). Comp. the 
legend of the Septuagint. 

2 See n. 74 in Migne, vol. i. p. 1267 (Clem. Recog. ii. 42). 


270 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |X. 1-16. 


the Hellenists (Acts vi. 1-7), is given by Lk. alone. This fact has Icd to the 
conjecture that he himself was one of the Seventy; a conjecture apparently 
sanctioned by those who selected this passage as the Gospel for S. Luke’s Day, 
but implicitly contradicted by himself in his preface (i. 1-4), which indicates 
that he was not an eye-witness. His mention of the Seventy and the silence 
of Mt. and Mk. are very intelligible. The mission belongs to a period about 
which he had special information, and about which they tell us little. They 
omit many other matters connected with this part of Christ’s ministry. Had 
they given us the other details and omitted just this one, there would have been 
some difficulty. Moreover, this incident would have special interest for the 
writer of the Universal Gospel, who sympathetically records both the sending 
of the Twelve to the tribes of Israel (ix. 1-6), and the sending of the Seventy 
to the nations of the earth. No mention of the Gentiles is made in the charge 
to the Seventy; but there is the significant omission of any such command as 
“Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the 
Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. x. 
5, 6). And in Perzea, which was to be the scene of their labours, the propor- 
tion of Gentiles would be larger than in the districts to the west of the Jordan. 
The silence of Jn. respecting the mission of the Seventy is no more surprising 
than his silence respecting the mission of the Twelve. He omits these, as he 
omits many things, because they have been sufficiently recorded, and because 
they are not required for the plan of his Gospel. 

The proposals to treat the charge to the Seventy as a mere doublet of the 
charge to the Twelve, or as an invention of the Evangelist in the interest of 
Pauline ideas, will not bear criticism. In either case, why does Lk. also give 
us the charge to the Twelve (ix. I-6), and in such close proximity? In the 
latter case, why does he not insert a special direction to go to the Gentiles? 
The difference and the similarity between the two charges are quite in- 
telligible. The mission of the Seventy was not permanent, like that of the 
Twelve. Yet the object of it was not, like that of ix. 52, to prepare shelter 
and food, but, like that of the Twelve, to prepare for Christ’s teaching. The 
increased numbers were necessary because the time was short, and in many 
cases His first visit would also be His last. And when we examine the two 
charges in detail, we find that there is not only the prohibition noted above, 
which is given to the Twelve and not to the Seventy, but also several directions 
which are given to the Seventy and not to the Twelve. Neither in Mt. x. 
5-15, nor in Mk. vi. 7-11, nor in Lk. ix. I-5 is there any equivalent to Lk. 
x. 2, 8; while a good deal of what is similar in the two charges is differently 
worded or differently arranged. See Rushbrooke’s Syzofitzcon, pp. 35, 36. One 
may readily admit the possibility of some confusion between the traditional 
forms of the two charges; but no such hypothesis is required. The work of 
the Seventy was sufficiently similar to the work of the Twelve to make the 
directions given in each case similar. An address to candidates for ordination 
now would be largely the same, whether addressed to deacons or to priests. 
The uncritical character of the hypothesis that this section is an invention to 
promote Pauline doctrine is further shown by the fact that its authenticity is 
clearly recognized in a work of notoriously anti-Pauline tendency, viz. the 
Clementine Recognitions.2 And whatever may be the worth of the traditions 





1 Renan has a remarkable passage, in which he shows how the customs of 
Oriental hospitality aided the preaching and spread of the Gospel ( V. de /. p. 293). 

2 Peter is represented as saying: Vos ergo primos elegit duodecim sibi 
credentes, quos apostolos nominavit, postmodum alios septuaginta duos pro- 
batissimos discipulos, ut vel hoc modo recognita imagine Moysis crederet 
multitude, quia hic est, quem preedixit Moyses venturum prophetam (i. 40). 
It is worth noting that in the Recoguztéons the number of the nations of the 
earth is given as seventy-two (ii. 42). 


x. 1.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 271 


that this or that person was one of the Seventy, how could the traditions 
(some of which are as old as the second century) have arisen, if no such body 
as the Seventy ever existed? 

As Eusebius remarks (ZH. £. i. 12. 1), ‘‘ there exists no catalogue of the 
Seventy.” ! But he goes on to mention traditions as to a few of them, some of 
which come from the AyZotyposes of Clement of Alexandria. Barnabas (Acts 
iv. 36, etc.), Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1), Cephas (Gal. ii. 11), Matthias (Acts i. 
26), Joseph. called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus (Acts i. 23), and 
Thaddzeus are mentioned as among the Seventy. Clement states definitely of 
Barnabas the Apostle that he was one of the Seventy (Szvovz. ii. 20, p. 489, ed. 
Potter), and in Clem. Recog. i. 7 he is called one of Christ’s disciples. So far 
as we know, Clement was the first to separate the Cephas of Gal. ii. 11 from 
the Apostle. This second Cephas is an obvious invention to avoid a collision 
between two Apostles, and to free S. Peter from the condemnation of S. Paul. 
From Acts i. 21 we know that both Matthias and Barsabbas had been with 
Jesus during the whole of His ministry ; and therefore the tradition that they 
were among the Seventy may be true. Thaddzeus was one of the Twelve, and 
cannot have been one of the Seventy also. Eusebius gives the tradition as 
rumour (gaol). To these may be added an improbable tradition preserved by 
Origen, that Mark the Evangelist was one of the Seventy. 

The early disappearance of the Seventy is sufficiently accounted for by (1) 
the temporary character of their mission ; (2) the rise of the order of presbyters, 
which superseded them ; (3) the fact that no eminent person was found among 
them. It is not improbable that the N.T. prophets were in some cases disciples 
who had belonged to this body. 

The Fathers make the twelve springs of water at Elim represent the 
Apostles, and the threescore and ten palm trees represent the Seventy disciples 
(Exod. xv. 27; Num. xxxiii. 9). Thus Tertul. Adv. Marcion. iv. 24; Orig. 
Hom. vii. in Exod. and Hom. xxvii. in Num.; Hieron. Zp. Ixix. 6. 


1, Mera Sé taito. After the incidents just narrated (ix. 46-62). 
The historical connexion is clearly marked. 

dvédergev 6 KUpios. The verb is found in N.T. only here and 
Acts i. 24; freq. in LXX. Comp. dvddeéis (i. 80). It means 
“show forth, display,” and hence “make public, proclaim,” 
especially a person’s appointment to an office: dvudéderya Tov vidv 
pov *Avtioxov Bactéa (2 Mac. ix. 25; comp. x. II, xiv. 12, 26; 
1 Esdr. i. 34, viii. 23). This meaning of the word seems to be 
late (Polyb. Plut. etc.). But the use of an official word of this 
kind points to a more important preparation for Christ’s coming 
than is indicated ix. 52. Therefore érépous points back to ix. 1-6, 
the mission of the Twelve. For 6 Kupios see on v. 17, and 
comp. vil. 13: describitur hoc loco actus vere dominicus (Beng.). 


The é7épous is in apposition, ‘‘others, viz. seventy.” The xal before 
érépous (§ ACD) is of very doubtful authority, and is as likely to have been 
inserted in explanation as omitted because superfluous. Comp. xxiii. 32, 
where «al is certainly genuine ; and see Win. lix. 7. d, p. 665. 


€BSopykovta [8vo]. Both external and internal evidence are 
1 Steinhart in his ed. of the Scholia on Luke, by Abulfarag Bar-Hebreus 


(p. 22, Berlin, 1895), questions the statement of Assemani (&. 0. iii. 1. 320), 
that Bar-Hebrzeus gives a list of the Seventy. Such lists have been invented. 


272 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X.1, 2 


rather evenly balanced as to the addition or omission of 6vo. The 
word might have been either inserted or omitted to make the 
number agree with the Seventy Elders, for with Eldad and Medad 
they were seventy-two. The nations of the earth also are sometimes 
reckoned as seventy, sometimes as seventy-two. The dvo might 
also be omitted to make a favourite number (Gen. xlvi. 27; Exod. i. 
5) XV. 27; Judg. i. 7, ix. 25 2 Kings x. 1; Ezra vill. yaa se. 
15; Jer. xxv. 11,etc.). See Ryle, Canon of O.T. p. 158. 


éBdouncovra. NACLXTAETN etc., dfg Syrr. Goth. Aeth., Iren-Lat. 
Tert. Eus. 

éBdounkovra Sve. BDMR, ace Vulg. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Arm., Clem- 
Recogn. Epiph. Scrivener considers the evidence against 6¥o to be 
‘overwhelming both in number and weight.” So also Keim. WH. 
bracket, Treg. and Tisch. omit. 


éva 8do. For companionship, as in the case of the Twelve 
(Mk. vi. 7), of the Baptist’s disciples (Lk. vii. 19), of Barnabas and 
Saul (Acts xiii. 2), of Judas and Silas (xv. 27), of Barnabas and 
Mark (xv. 39), of Paul and Silas (xv. 40), of Timothy and Silas 
(xvii. 14), of Timothy and Erastus (xix. 22). The testimony of two 
would be more weighty than that of one; and they had to bear 
witness to Christ’s words and works. Comp. Eccles. iv. 9-12 ; Gen. 
ii. 18. The reading ava dvo dvo (B K) seems to be a combination 
of ava. Sve gnd dvo dvo (Mk. vi. 7; Gen. vi. 19, 20). 

jmedNev adtds épxeoOar. ‘‘ He Himself (as distinct from these 
forerunners) was about to come.” 

2. “O pév Oepiopds modus, . . . eis Tov Oepicpdv adtod. This 
saying is verbatim the same as that which Mt. ix. 37, 38 records 
as addressed to the disciples just before the mission of the Twelve. 
The Twelve and the Seventy were answers to the prayer thus 
prescribed; and both had the warning of the fewness of the 
labourers and the greatness of the work. The éAtyo has no re- 
ference to the Seventy as being too few: the supply is always 
inadequate. We cannot conclude anything as to the time of year 
when the words were spoken from the mention of harvest. So 
common a metaphor might be used at any season. Com. Jn. iv. 35. 

Why does RV. retain the “truly” of AV. in Mt. ix. 37 while abolishing 
it here? It has no authority in either place, and apparently comes from the 
quidem of Vulg., which represents puév. 

SeyOnre. The verb does not occur in Mk. or Jn., nor in Mt. excepting 
in this saying (ix. 38). It is a favourite with Lk. (v. 12, viii. 28, 38, ix. 38, 
40, xxi. 36, xxii. 32; Acts iv. 31, viii. 22, etc.). Elsewhere rare in N.T., 
but very freq. in LXX. For the constr. see Burton, § 200, 


Stws épydtas éxBddyn. “Send forth with haste and urgency.” 
The verb expresses either pressing need, or the directness with 
which they are sent to their destination. Comp. Mk. i. 12; Mt. 
xii, 20; Jas. ii, 25. There is always human unwillingness to be 


X. 2-6.) JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 273 


overcome: comp. Exod. iv. 10, 13; Judg. iv. 8; Jon. i. 3. For 
épydtas of agricultural labourers comp. Mt. xx. 1, 8; Jas. v. 4; 
Ecclus. xix. 1; and of labourers in the cause of religion, 2 Cor. 
ieee 5 Pail ti..2; 2 Tim. i. F5. 

3. i800 docté\hw Spas, x.t.X. Thesame is said to the Twelve, 
with zpoBara for dpvas (Mt. x. 16).!_ For dmooréAhw see on iv. 18. 
In the ancient homily wrongly attributed to Clement of Rome 
(Lft., Clement, ii. p. 219) we have the following: A€ye yap 6 Kipuos 
"Eoeobe os dpvia &v péow AvKwy" aroxpibels be 6 Mérpos atta déyer® 
"Edy obv dvacrapégwov ot AvKou Ta Gpvia; elev 6 “Iyoods TH Tlérpw* 
Mi) doBetobwoar ra apvia Tovs AvKous peta 76 droGavetv aitd, Then 
follows a loose quotation of Mt. x. 28 or Lk. xii. 4, 5. See A. 
Resch, Agrapha, Texte u. Untersuch. Vv. 4, p. 377, 1889. 

4. pi) Baordlete Badddvtiov, ph ampav, wh Srodypata, The 
Talmud enjoins that no one is to go on the Temple Mount with 
staff, shoes, scrip, or money tied to him in his purse. Christ’s 
messengers are to go out in the same spirit as they would go to 
the services of the temple, avoiding all distractions. Edersh. 
The Temple, p. 42. From Baord€ere we infer that irodjara were 
not to be carried in addition to what were worn on the feet. 
Sandals were allowed in the temple. Comp. ix. 3, xxii. 35. The 
whole charge means, “Take with you none of the things which 
travellers commonly regard as indispensable. Your wants will be 
supplied.” In N.T. BadAdvytoy occurs only in Lk. (xii. 33, xxii. 
35, 36): in LXX Job xiv. 17. The word is quite classical: 
Kennedy, Sources of NV.T. Grk. p. 42. See on ix. 3 and vii. 14. 

pydeva Kata Thy 68dv domdonobe. They are to go straight to 
their destination, and not give their message of good tidings until 
they have reached it. It is not greetings, but greetings xara tiv 
6d6v that are forbidden.2 Omnia pretermitiatis, dum quod in- 
junctum est peragatis (Aug.). Comp. 2 Kings iv. 29. Like the 
sayings in ix. 60, 62, this prohibition implies that entire devotion 
to the work in hand is necessary. 

5. But directly they have reached a goal, and have obtained 
admission to a household, a greeting is to be given. Comp. ii. 14, 
eipyvn ev avOpwrots ; JN. XX. 19, 21, 26, eipyvy div. 

6. vids cipyyns. Another Hebraism: “one inclined to peace”: 
dignus gui illo voto potiatur. Comp. vids yeévvys (Mt. xxiii. 15) ; 
THs GroXetas (JN. Xvil. 12); THs darevHetas (Eph. v. 6); Gavdrov (2 Sam, 

1 Comp. Won derelinguas nos stcut pastor gregem suum in manibus luporum 
malignorum (4 Esr. v. 18). Ovem lupo commiészsti (Ter. Eunuch, v. 1. 16). 
Other examples in Wetst. on Mt. x. 16. Here dpvas év néow AvKwv must be 
ace closely together: as certain of being attacked as lambs in the midst of 
wolves. 

2See Tristram, Zastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 57, for a graphic 
illustration of the value of the precept, ‘‘ Salute no man by the way.” Pulkra 
est salutatio, sed pulchrior matura exsecutio (Ambr. zx loco). 

18 


274 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 6, 7. 


xii. 5). Comp. réxva dpyjs (Eph. ii. 3). It was a saying of Hillel, 
** Be thou of Aaron’s disciples, loving peace and seeking for peace.” 


travaTrayceres, This is the reading of &B for éravamavera, like 
avarancovTat (Rev. uiv. 13). A 2 aor. pass. émdypy is given by Choeroboscus. 
Veitch, sz. Tabi, Pr 456. Comp. éraveratcaro 7d rvetua ex’ avrovs (Num. 
xi. 25; 2 Kings ii. 15). Here oe avréy probably refers to the son of peace, 
not to the house. or ef 6¢ pye (which is freq. in Lk.) see small print on 
v. 36, and Burton, § 275. 


ep’ Spas dvaxdpyer. “As if it had been unspoken”; or, “as 
if it had been spoken to you, instead of by you.”? Comp. Mt i ii. 
12; Acts xviii, 21; Heb. xi. 15 ; Exod. xxxii. 27; 2 Sam. iL 22, 
viii. 13, etc. But they have no discretion as to giving this saluta- 
tion, however unworthy the recipient may seem to be. 


7. bv airy 82 rH olla pévere. Not ‘in the same house” (as all English 
Versions, Vulg. and Luther), which would be ¢v 7 avrq olxig, but ‘in that 
very house,” viz. the one which has given a welcome. Comp. ii. 38, xii. 12, 
xiii, I, 31, Xx. 19, xxiii, 12, xxiv. 13, 33; in all which places RV. has rightly 
‘that very.” But here it has ‘that same,” and ver. 21 it changes “that” 
(AV.) to ‘that same.” Lk. prefers év avTy TH &pa, huépg, kK.T.A. The 
other Evangelists prefer év éxelvy ry pg, K.7.X. 

éxOovres. The poetic form éc0w is very rare in prose: comp. Vil. 33, 
xxii, 30; Mk. i. 6; Lev. xvii. 10; Is. ix. 20; Ecclus. xx. 18, 


7a wap attav. What their entertainers provide: they are to 
consider themselves as members of the family, not as intruders ; 
for their food and shelter are salary and not alms. Comp. ra zap’ 
tyav, “the bounty which you provide” (Phil. iv. 18), and see Lft. 
on Gal. i, 12. The injunction is parallel to 1 Cor. ix. 7, not to 
1 Cor. x. 27. Christ is freeing them from sensitiveness about 
accepting entertainment, not from scruples about eating food 
provided by heathen. 

détos yap 6 épydtys Tod picO0d adtod. Mt. x. 10 has ris Tpophs 
abrod. Epiphanius combines the two with Lk. iii. 14: dEvos yap 
6 épy. T. pio). adrod Kal dpKerov TO epyalouevy 7 n Tpopy avrov (Her. 
Ixxx. 5, p. 1072 A). Much more interesting is the quotation in 
1 Tim. v. 18, which has been made an objection to the genuine- 
ness of the Epistle. But it is probable (1) that Aéyer yap 7H ypahy 
applies only to Body dAodvra od diydoes, and (2) that “Agwos 6 
épydtys Tov picGod airod is given as a well-known proverb or 
saying of Christ. See Introduction, § 6, i. a. 

py petaBatvete é€ oikias cis oixiay. “ Do not go on changing,” 
#.e. wevere. They were not to fear being burdensome to their first 
entertainers, nor to go back to those who had rejected them, still 


1 Quod semel a dei opulentia exiit non frustra exitt, sed aliquem certe ime 
wenit, cut cd obtingat. Solatium ministrorum, qué sibi videntur nil edificara 
(Beng.). 

a Talk not of wasted affection ; affection never is wasted” (Longfellow) 


X. 7-11] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM as 


less to seek more pleasant quarters. Perhaps also this is a warn. 
ing against accepting numerous invitations which would waste 
precious time. To this day in the East travellers who arrive at 
an Arab village are overwhelmed with a round of invitations 
(Lasserre, Evangiles, p. 324). Note the exact and original anti- 
thesis between é& and «is, “out of” and “into ¢He interior of.” 

8. kat cis fv avy mod. Apparently vv. 5-7 apply to single 
dwellings, vv. 8-12 to towns. For 8éxwvra see small print on 
viii. 13. We might expect cay déywvrat for xai d€xwvrat. 

7a Trapatiépeva Spiv. Just “what is offered,” without demand- 
ing more or anything different. They must be neither greedy nor 
fastidious. Comp. ix. 16; Gen. xxiv. 33, xliil. 31; 1 Sam. xxviii. 
22; 2 Sam. xii. 20; 2 Kings vi. 22; 4 Mac. vi. 15. 

9. Kal héyete attois. “And continue saying to them”; Ze. 
to the inhabitants generally, not merely to the sick. 

“Hyyxev é Spas 4 Bactdeta tod Geod. So that the last preach- 
ing resembled the first: Mt. iil. 2, iv. 17; Mk.i.15. The King- 
dom of Heaven is naturally thought of as coming “fon” men, 
down from above. For eyyifew éxi twa see Ps. xxvi. 2; 1 Mac. 
v. 40, 42. Comp. Mt. xii. 28. Note Lk.’s favourite éyyifecv. 

10. One house might receive them, but the town as a whole 
reject them. In that case they are to leave the house (é£«\@ovres) 
and deliver a public warning before leaving the town. 


els Tas mAatelas. ‘Into the open streets” (wAdt, wAdros): It is the 
fem. of tAaTiés with 656s understood: xili. 26, xiv. 21; Acts v. 15; Prov. 
vii. 6; Is, xv. 3; Ezek. vii. 19. Not in Mk.-or Jn. 


11. Kat tév kovtopréy Tov KohAnOévTa Hiv. “ Hven the dust that 
cleaveth to us.” ‘Not even the smallest thing of yours will we 
have.” Hobart claims xoAAdw as a medical word (pp. 128, 129). 
In N.T. it is used only in the passive with reflexive force. It 
occurs seven times in Lk. (xv. 15; Acts v. 13, Vili. 29, ix. 26, 
x, 28, xvii. 34) and four times elsewhere (Mt. xix. 5; Rom. xii. 9; 
1 Cor. vi. 16; Rev. xviii. 5), three of which are quotations from 
LXX, where it is frequent; once in the active (Jer. xiii. 11). 
Neither in LXX (excepting Tobit vii. 16 &) nor in N.T. does 
arropaccev Occur again: comp. éxudcoev (vil. 38, 44). 

TARY TodTo ywdoxete St. “ But, although you reject us, the 
fact remains that you must perceive, that,” etc. See on vi. 24, 35. 
Note that there is no é¢’ iuas (om. 8 B D LB) after ijyytxer. The 
message of mercy has become a sentence of judgment. “The 
Kingdom has come nigh, but not on you, because you have put 
it from you.” 


‘Lk alone of the Evangelists uses roUro . . . 8 (xii. 39; Acts xxiv. 14). 
Jn. has Sr: after 5:4 robro, but after rodro has ta. 


276 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [X. 12-14, 


12. év ri Hpépa éxeivy. The day of judgment following on the 
completion of the Kingdom, as is clear from ver. 14. Comp. 
Xx1. 34; Mt. vii. 22; 2 Thes.i. 10; 2 Tim. i. 12, 18, iv. 8. Lk. 
vi. 23 is different. As in ver. 24, Lk. omits the introductory é apnv : 
he also omits xai Toudppos. The people in the cities of the plain 
had had no such opportunities as those to whom Christ’s. own 
disciples preached. Comp. Mt. xi. 23. 

dvextotepov. Remissius (Vulg. ); tolerabilius (Lat. Vet.). Only 
the comparative of avexrds (avéxouar) occurs in N.T., and always in 
this phrase: Mt. x. 15, xi. 22, 24. Not in LXX. 

13-15. The Solemn Farewell to the Cities in which He had 
preached and manifested Himself in vain. The mention of the 
judgment which awaits the towns that shall reject His forerunners 
naturally leads to the mention of those places which have already 
rejected Him. It is plain from ver. 16 that this lamentation over 
the three cities is part of the address to the Seventy. The word- 
ing is almost the same as Mt. xi. 21-24, but there the comparison 
with Sodom is joined to the denunciation of Capernaum. 

18. Xopafetv. Excepting here and the similar Woe in Mt. xi. 21, 
Chorazin is not mentioned in N.T. This shows us how much of 
Christ’s work is left unrecorded (Jn. xxi. 25). The name does not 
occur in O.T. nor in Josephus. It may be identified with the 
ruins now called Xerazeh, about two miles N.E. of Zell Him, 
which is supposed to be Capernaum ; and Jerome tells us that 
Chorazin was two miles from Capernaum: est autem nunc desertum 
in secundo lapide a Capharnaum. Some identify Zed] Him with 
Chorazin ; but Conder, who does not believe that Ze// Him is 
Capernaum, nevertheless regards Kerdzeh as certainly Chorazin 
(Handbook to the Bible, pp. 324-326): and this is now the pre- 
vailing view. D.B.? s.v. 


ty caxxo.. . Kadypevor. Constructo ad sensum: comp. ver. 8, 
Xopafely and ByOcatdd are feminine, and hence the reading xa@7jpevat (D). 


év odkxy. Our “sackcloth” gives a wrong idea of odxxos, 
which was made of the hair of goats and other animals, and was 
used for clothing. But sacks were made of it (Gen. xlii. 25 ; Josh. 
ix. 4) as well as garments. Comp. Jon. ili. 6. The méda points 
toa ministry of considerable duration in these cities. 

petevénoav. Like perdvova (see on iil. 3), wetavoety is much 
more frequent in Lk. (xi. 32, xiil. 3, 5, xv. 7, etc.) than in Mt. and 
Mk. Neither is found in Jn. See on v. 32. 

‘14. why Tépo cat Xi8an. “But, guilty as Tyre and Sidon 
are, yet,” etc. They were both of them heathen commercial 
towns, and are frequently denounced by the Prophets for. their 
wickedness: Is. xxiii.; Jer. xxv. 22, xlvii. 4; Ezek. xxvi. 3-7, 
xxviii. 12-22. Of Chorazin and Bethsaida the paradox was true, 


x. 14-17.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 277 


that the Kingdom of God had come nigh to them, and yet they 
were far from the Kingdom of God. 

15. ph éws odpavod GpwOyon; “Shalt thou be exalted as far 
as heaven? Thou shalt be thrust down as far as Hades.” Both 
here and Mt. xi. 23 the reading 7 . . . i~weica is found in many 
authorities ; but the evidence against it (8 B D L 2) is conclusive. 
Godet supports it as being parfaitement claire et simple; which is 
the explanation of the corruption. There is less certainty as to 
whether xatayoy, which is probably right in Mt, is right here 
(BD): xaraBiBacbjoy is well supported. In Ezek. xxxi. 16, 17 
we have both xareBiBafov cis adov and xaréBycay eis ddov. Heaven 
and Hades (not Gehenna) here stand for height of glory and 
depth of shame (Is. xiv. 13-15). The desolation of the whole 
neighbourhood, and the difficulty of identifying even the sites of 
these flourishing towns, is part of the fulfilment of this prophecy. 
See Jos. B.//. ili. 10. 9; Farrar, Life of Christ, ii. 101 ; Tristram, 
Bible Places, 267 ; Renan, L’Antechris?, p. 277. 

16. ‘O dxovwy Spay eno dxovet. Note the chiasmus. This 
verse connects the work of Christ with the work of His disciples 
(Acts ix. 4), and forms a solemn conclusion to the address to the 
Seventy. Those who reject their message will share the lot of 
-hose who rejected Christ :? all alike have rejected God. Comp. 
Mt. x. 40; Jn. xiii. 20; 1 Thes. iv. 8; 1 Sam. viii. 7. The 
Seventy must do their utmost to avert so miserable a result of 
their labours. For dGetet see on vii. 30. 

17-24. The Return of the Seventy. They would not all 
return at once, and probably did not all return to the same place, 
but met Jesus at different points as He followed them. Contrast 
the very brief account of the return of the Twelve (ix. 10). 
Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 225. 

17. “Yréotpepav Sé ot EBSounkovra. Most of the authorities 
which add dvo in ver. 1 add it here also. By “returned” is meant 
that they came back to Jesus. He meanwhile had been moving. 
See on iv. 14 and i. 56. 

kal Ta Satudva Grotdcverar. ‘Even the demons are being 
subjected.” ‘This was more than they expected, for they had only 
been told to heal the sick (ver. 9); whereas the Twelve were 
expressly endowed with power to cast out demons (ix. 1). There 
is nothing to show that Lk. considers exorcizing evil spirits to be the 
highest of gifts ; but the Seventy were specially elated at possessing 
this power. They think more of it than of their success in pro- 
claiming the Kingdom ; yet they recognize that it is derived from 
their Master. {t is in His name that they can exorcize. His 
reply is partly (ver. 20) like the reply to the woman who pro- 


111 cherchast de toute manizre a établir en principe ses apétres ¢ dait 
lui-méme (Ieuan, V. de /. p. 294). = = 


278 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |X. 17%, 18. 


nounced His Mother to be blessed (xi. 27, 28). They may 
admire this; but there is something much more admirable. 

18. *E@ewpouv tov Xatavav. At the very time when His 
ministers were casting out Satan’s ministers,—nay, even as He 
was sending them forth to their work, Jesus knew that Satan was 
being overcome. In the defeat of the demons He saw the down- 
fall of their chief. This passage is again conclusive evidence as to 
Christ’s teaching respecting the existence of a personal power of 
evil. See on viii. 12, and comp. xiii. 16, xxii. 31. In all these 
cases it would have been quite natural to speak of impersonal 
evil. See DB.) art. “Satan”; Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. App. xiii. § ii. 

In N.T. the form is Zaravas (not excepting 2 Cor. xii. 7), which is 
declined, and almost invariably has the art.; but xxii. 3 and Mk, iii. 23 are 
exceptions. In LXX the word is rare. We have cardy, indecl. and without 
art., 1 Kings xi. 14, [23, 25], in the sense of ‘‘ adversary,” a human enemy 3 
and rév Zaravay, or Tov Zaravd, Ecclus. xxi. 27. 

For the imperf. comp. Acts xviii. 5, and see Win. xl. 3. d, p. 336 


&s dotpamy. It was as visible and unmistakable: comp. 
xvii. 24; Mt. xxiv. 27. The words are amphibolous, but are 
better taken with eGedpovv than with é« tod ovpavod, which is to be 
joined with zeodvra: comp. ix. 17, 27, 57, Xili. 1, etc. In B 254 
€k Tov ovpavod precedes as aotparyv. As in ver. 15, heaven is 
here put for the height of prosperity and power comp. Is. xiv. 12 
and ra érovpdva (Eph. vi. 12).1 

meoovta. Last with emphasis. The “fallen” of RV. is no 
improvement on the “fall” of AV. “I beheld Satan fallen” 
means “saw him prostrate after his fall.” The aor. indicates the 
coincidence between the success of the Seventy and Christ’s 
vision of Satan’s overthrow; and neither “fallen” nor “falling” 
(cadentem, Vulg.) express this so well as “fall” in English. See 
Burton, § 146, and T. S. Evans, Exfositor, 2nd series, iii. p. 164. 
Some refer the fall to the original fall of the Angels (Jude 6), in 
which case éGewpodr refers to the Son pre-existing with the Father. 
Others to the Incarnation, or the Temptation. Rather, it refers 
to the success of the disciples regarded as a symbol and earnest 
of the complete overthrow of Satan. Jesus had been contemplat- 
ing evil as a power overthrown. In any case there is no analogy 
between this passage and Rev. xii. 12: the point is not that the 
devil has come down to work mischief on the earth, but that his 
power to work mischief is broken. 


This verse is sometimes quite otherwise explained. ‘‘ You are elated at 


1 Comp. mpds otpavdv BiBGv (Soph. O. C. 381) ; Caxsar fertur in celum (Cic. 
Phil. iv. 3), collegam de calo detraxistz (Phil. ii. 42). 

2 Cum vos nuper mitterem ad evangelizandum videbam demonem sud 
potestate @ me privatum quasi de celo cadere, ac per vos magis casurum (Corn 
a Lap.), 


X.18,19.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 279 


your victory over the demons, and are proud of your spiritual powers. Beware 
of spiritual pride. There was a time when I beheld Satan himself fall even 
from heaven owing to this sin.”1 Others make it a rebuke to complacency and 
elation, but in another way. ‘‘ You are overjoyed at finding that demons are 
subject to you. That is no very great thing. I once beheld their sovereign 
cast out of heaven itself ; and their subjection was involved in his overthrow.” 
Both these interpretations depend upon a misunderstanding of rod ovpavoi, 
which does not mean the abode of the Angels, but the summit of power (Lam. 
ii. I). This is well expressed in the Clementine Liturgy, in the Collect at the 
dismissal of the exergumens, 6 prtas abrov ws dorpamiy é& ovpavod els yhv, ob 
TomMUK@ pryuaTt, GAd amd tips els dryutav, Ot’ Exovotovy avTod kaKkdvo.ay. 
Hammond, Liturgees Eastern and Western, Oxford, 1878, p. 5- 


19. Sé8wxa Spiv thy éfouciay, The powers which they have 
received are larger than they had supposed. They possessed 
during their mission, and still retain, se ¢fovoia to vanquish the 
powers of evil. Note the article, which is almost peculiar to this 
passage. Contrast v. 24, ix. 1, xil. 5, xix. 17; Acts ix. 14. The 
passage is possibly moulded on Ps. xci. 13: ér domida cai Bact 
Nickov émByoy, Kal Katararnoes Adovta Kal Spdxovta ; but comp. 
Deut. viii. 15: tod dyaydvros oe Sua THs epyuov THS peydAns Kat 
ms poBepas exetvys, ov dis daxvwv Kal cxopzios. The meaning is 
that no fraud or treachery shall prevail against them. 

kal él wagay Stvap.v tod éx8p0d. Contrast the dvvays of the 
enemy with the éfovcia given by Christ. Nor shall any hostile 
strength or ability succeed. The promise in both cases refers to 
victory over spiritual foes rather than to immunity from bedily 
injuries. ‘The enemy” means Satan: Mt. xiii. 25; Rom. xvi. 20; 
1 Pet. v. 8. But protection from physical harm may be included 
(Acts xxviii. 3-5). The appendix to Mk. more clearly includes 
this (xvi. 18). Comp. the story of S. John being preserved from 
being harmed by boiling oil (Tertul. Preser. Her. xxxvi.), or by 
drinking hemlock (Lips. Apokr. Apostelgesch. i. pp. 426, 428, 432, 
480, etc.). This latter story is unknown to the Fathers of the 
first six centuries. 


éml macav thy Suv. This does not depend upon rareiy, as is shown by 
the change of prep. and case, but upon éfovelay, They have éfovcla over 
every dvvayus. 

matey érdve, Not of trampling under foot as vanquished, but of 
walking upon without being hurt. 

ovdév vas ov py Gdixyoet. Strong negation: ovdéy is probably the 
subject of déuxjoe. We might translate, ‘‘and the power of the enemy shall 
not in anywise hurt you.” For décxeiy with double acc. comp. Acts xxv. 103 
Gal. iv. 12; Philem. 18: and for dé.cety in the sense of ‘‘ injure” comp. Rev, 
Vil. 3, ix. 4. The reading décx7joy (BC) looks like a grammatical correction, 





1Thus Gregory the Great: Mire Dominus, ut in discipulorum cordibus 
elationem premeret, mox judictum ruinz retulit, quod ipse magister elationss 
accepit ; ut in auctore superbixe discerent, quid de elationis vitio formidarent 
(Moral, xxiii. 6, Migne, Ixxvi. 259). 


280 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [x. 19-21, 


This last clause sums up the other two. They have power 
over fraud and force; nothing shall harm them. Comp. Jn. x. 28, 
205 1S. ods, 9: 

20. whi év tovTw ph xalpere. “But (although you may well 
rejoice, yet) cease to rejoice in this, but continue to rejoice in 
something better.” Pres. imperat. in both cases. Jsta Jetitia 
periculo superbie subjacet: illa demissum gratumque animum Deo 
sudjicit (Grotius). The casting out of demons gives no security 
for the possession of eternal life. It is not one of ra xapiopara 
ra petlova: still less is it the xa@ trepBodjy 6ddv (1 Cor. xii. 31). 
A Judas might cast out demons. Comp. “I will have mercy, and 
not sacrifice” (Hos. vi. 6), which does not mean that sacrifice is 
forbidden, but that mercy is greatly superior. See on xxili. 28 
and comp. xiv. 12, 13. For zAyv comp. vv. 11, 14. 

7a Gvépata Guay évyeypamtat év Tots ovpavots. “ Your names 
have been written, and remain written, in heaven,” as citizens 
possessing the full privileges of the heavenly commonwealth: zm 
celis unde Satanas decidit: etsi reclamavit Satanas: etiamsi in 
terra non sitis celebres (Beng.). But there is probably no refer- 
ence to & 7@ évduari cov (ver. 17). “Do not rejoice because 
you exorcize demons in AZy name, but rejoice because your 
names are written in heaven,” is a false antithesis.2 There is no 
emphasis on tuav. Comp. Heb. xii. 23; Rev. ili. 8, xvii. 8, 
XX, 12, 15, Xxl. 27, xxl. 19; Phil. iii, 20. The figure is one or 
many taken from O.T. and endued with a higher meaning: Is. 
iv. 3; Ezek. xiii. 9; Dan. xii. 1. Comp. Hermas, Visage 
Sim. ii. 9. Contrast Jer. xvii. 13. For Rabbinical illustrations 
see Wetst. on Phil. iv. 3. Allusion to the Oriental custom of 
recording in the archives the names of benefactors (Esth. x. 2; 
Hat. viii. go. 6) is not probable. And it is clear from Rev. ili. 5, 
xxii. 19; Exod. xxxii. 32; Ps. Ixix. 28 that absolute predestina- 
tion is not included in the metaphor. For the Hebr. plur. rots 
ovpavots comp. xii. 53, xxi. 26; Acts vil. 55. 

21-24. The Exultation of Jesus over the Divine Preference 
shown to the Disciples. Mt. xi. 25-27. Nowhere else is any- 
thing of the kind recorded of Christ. Mt. connects it with the 
Woes on the three cities, and connects these with the message 
from the Baptist. 

21. °Ev atta TH dpa. “In that very hour” (see small print on 
ver. 7), making the connexion with the return of the Seventy close 


2 Justin Martyr says to the Roman Emperors, duets 5’ droxretvar pev divacde, 
Brdyac 8’ of (AZol. i. 2). He is probably adapting Plat. 4Zo/. 30 C 

2 Augustine seems to suggest it Zvarr. im Ps. xci. But Enarr. in Ps, cxxx, 
he says well: Won omnes Christiani boni demonia ejtciunt ; omnium tamer 
nomina scripta sunt in celo. Non eos voluit gaudere ex eo guod proprium 
habebant, sed ex eo quod cum ceteris saluiem tenebant, 


x. 21.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 281 


and express. Both this and airy 7H dpa (without &) are peculiar 
tobe (vilo 21, xi. 12, xx. 19: and ii, 38); Acts xvi. 18, xxil, 13). 
In the parallel passage we have év exetvyp 7@ kaip@ (Mt. xi. 25). 

Hyaddudcaro To mvetpare TO dylo. “Exulted in the Holy 
Spirit,” ze. this holy joy is a ‘Divine inspiration. ‘The fact is 
analogous to His being “led by the Spirit in the wilderness’ 
(iv. 1). Nowhere else is anything of the kind recorded of Christ. 
The verb is a strong one: comp. i. 47; Acts il. 26, xvi. 343 
2 Kings i. 20; 1 Chron. xvi. 31; Job iii. 183 Is. xii. 6, XXV. (0); 
Psalms passim. Mt. has merely dzroxpuGeis. 


The strangeness of the expression “‘ exulted in the Holy Spirit ” has led to 
the omission of 7@ dyly in A Syr-Sin. and some inferior authorities. There is 
no parallel in Scripture. Rom. i. 4; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. iii, 18, are not 
analogous. 


"E€opodoyodpat cor, mdétep KUpte Tod obpavoi kat Tis vis. coal [ 
acknowledge openly to Thine honour, I give Thee praise” ; Gen. 
Sieg Sie bs, xuxe Al.CVi. 47,0 Cx. 4; ROM. XIV. EI, XV:.9): Clem. 
Rom. 1xi. 3. Satan is cast down from heaven, and vanquished on 
earth. God is Father and Lord of both; Father in respect of the 
love, and Lord in respect of the power, which this fact exhibits. 
For other public recognitions of God as His Father comp. Mt. xv. 
13, XVili. 35; Jn. v. 17, Xi. 41, xii. 27; Lk. xxiii. 34, 46. The geni- 
tives belong to xvpue only, not to tadrep: comp. Clem. Hom. xvii. 5. 

dmexpuas Tata amd copay kat cuveT@v, k.t-A. The radra refers 
to the facts about the Kingdom made known by the Seventy. In 
sound as in sense there is a contrast between améxpyas and 
dmexadvpas. The aristocracy of intellect, who prided themselves 
upon their superiority, are here the lowest of all. The statement 
is general, but has special reference to the scribes and Pharisees, 
who both in their own and in popular estimation were the wise and 
enlightened (Jn. vii. 49, ix. 40). The vam are the unlearned, 
and therefore free from the prejudices of those who had been 
trained in the Rabbinical schools. It is very arbitrary to confine 
the thanksgiving to drexdAvpas: it belongs to dréxpuwas also. That 
God has proved His independence of human intellect is a matter 
for thankfulness. Intellectual gifts, so far from being necessary, are 
often a hindrance. S. Paul is fond of pointing out this law of the 
“Lord of heaven and earth”: Rom. i. 22; 1 Cor. i. 19-31; 
2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. Note the omission of the article before codav, 
ovverav, and vymios. To be coddc and ovverds is not fatal: such 
are not zpso facto excluded, although they often exclude themselves. 
Nor are the vymoe tps0 facto accepted. 


In Clem. Hom. viii. 6 the passage is quoted thus: éouoAoyotpat oor, marep 
Tov ovpavod kal THs Ys, bre dmérpupas Tatra amd copay kal mpecBurépwy, Kat 
dmexdduyas abra vyrlois OnAdgovcww ; and again, xviii. 15: é7t daep Gv KpumTd 


282 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [x. 21, 22, 


codots, drexdduas atta vymlous Onddfovew. The latter form avoids the diffi- 
culty about thanking God for hiding from the wise. In application the vjmuot 
are made to be the Gentiles. The Marcosians had the future,—é¢fouodoy7jc0- 
pot (Iren. i. 20. 3). 

The word v7m.os (vn, Eros) represents the Latin zzfans. Lat. Vet. and 
Vulg. have parvulds here and Mt. xi. 25; but zzfantium, Mt. xxi. 16. It is 
opposed to dv7jp, 1 Cor. xiii, 11; Eph. iv. 143 and to réAeios, Heb, v. 13. 

vat, This resumes the expression of thanks; and hence the second 8rt, 
like the first, depends upon e&0modoyobpal oor: ‘‘I thank Thee that thus it 
was well-pleasing.” Comp. Phil. iv. 3; Philem. 20; Rev. xvi. 7, xxii. 20, 

6 watyp. The nom. with the art. often takes the place of the voc. in 
N.T., and generally without any difference in meaning. This is specially the 
case with imperatives (viii. 54, xii. 32; Mt. xxvii. 29?; Mk. v. 41, ix. 253 
Col. iii. 18; Eph. vi. 1, etc.), and may often be due to Hebrew infiuence 
(2 Kings ix. 315; Jer. xlvii. 6). Here there is perhaps a slight difference 
between mdrep and 6 marzp, the latter meaning, ‘‘ Thou who art the Father of 

_all.” The use of 6 raryp for rarep may be due to liturgical influence. Comp.- 
“Mk. xiv. 36; Rom. viii. 15 ; and see Lft. on Gal. iv. 6 and Col. iii. 18; also 
Win. xxix. 2, p. 227; Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 76. 


eddokia éyéveto éumpoc0év cov. A Hebraism, with evdoxta first 
for emphasis. See on ii. 14. 

22. The importance of this verse, which is also in Mt. (xi. 27), 
has long been recognized. It is impossible upon any principles of 
criticism to question its genuineness, or its right to be regarded as 
among the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists. And 
it contains the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. It 
is like “an aerolite from the Johannean heaven” (Hase, Gesch. 
_/esu, p. 527); and for that very reason causes perplexity to those 
who deny the solidarity between the Johannean heaven and the 
Synoptic earth. It should be compared with the following pas- 
sages: Jn. iii, 35, vi. 46, Vill. 19, X. 15, 30, XIV. 9, XVi. 15, XVii. 
6, 10.2 


The introductory insertion, cal orpagels mpds Tods wabnras etrev (AC) is 
one of the few points in which the TR. (which with § BD LM omits the 
words) differs from the third edition of Steph. 


22. Mdvta por wapedd0n. The wdvra seems primarily to refer to 
the revealing and concealing. Christ has full power in executing 


1“ This passage is one of the best authenticated in the Synoptic Gospels. 
It is found in exact parallelism botk in Mt. and Lk., and is therefore known to 
have been part of that ‘collection « discourses’ (cf. Holtzmann, Syzopt. Hvan- 
gelien, p. 184; Ewald, Zvangeléen, »p. 20, 255; Weizsacker, pp. 166-169), in 
all probability the composition of :+¢ Apostle St. Matthew, which many critics 
believe to be the oldest of all the Evangelical documents. And yet once grant 
the authenticity of this passage, and there is nothing in the Johannean Christo- 
logy that it does not cover. Even the doctrine of pre-existence seems to be 
implicitly contained in it” (Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p. 109). Keim affirms that 
‘© There is no more violent criticism than thet which Strauss has introduced” of 
repudiating a passage so strongly attested (es. of Vaz. iv. p. 63). 


X. 22-24.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 283 


the Divine decrees. But it is arbitrary to confine the wdvra to 
the potestas revelandi. 

ywdoxer tis éotw 6 vids. “Comes to know what His nature is, 
His counsel, His will.” Mt. has érvywdoxe tov vidv, where the 
compound verb covers what is here expressed by the ris. Both 
might be translations of the same Aramaic. 


On purely subjective grounds Keim contends for the Marcionite reading 
&yvw, which is certainly as old as Justin (4Zo/. i. 63), although he has 
ywdoxe, Try. c. Even Meyer thinks that éyyw may be original. But the 
evidence against it is overwhelming. 

Syr-Sin. makes the two clauses interrogative: ‘* Wo knoweth the Son, 
except the Father? and who knoweth the Father, except the Son?” 

BovAntar...amoxadvypar. ‘< Willing to reveal” (RV.); ‘‘ will reveal” 
(AV.), is the simple future. There isa similar weakening of BovAec@a in AV. 
Acts xviii. 15, and of @é\ew, xix. 14. See small print on ix. 24. 


28, 24. In Mt. xiii. 16, 17 this saying, with some slight differ- 
ences, occurs in quite another connexion, viz. after the explanation 
of the reason for Christ’s speaking in parables. If the words were 
uttered only once, Lk. appears to give the actual position. The 
kat idiay seems to imply some interval between vv. 22 and 23. 
Christ’s thanksgiving seems to have been uttered publicly, in the 
place where the returning Seventy met Him. 

23. & Bdéwete. The absence of ipels is remarkable. Contrast 
tpav O& paxdptor of 6pGadpoi (Mt. xiii. 16). Lk. has no equivalent 
to Kal ra Gra [budv] drt dxovovow. Comp. paxdpror of yudpuevor év 
Tais juépars exeivars idetv Ta ayaba (Ps. Sol. xvii. 50, xviil. 7). 

24, moddot mpopfrat kal Backets. Balaam, Moses, Isaiah, and 
Micah; David, Solomon, and Hezekiah. For Baowcis Mt. .has 
dixaor, and for 76éAyncav has éreOvpnoav. Vulg. has voluerunt here 
and cupierunt in Mt. Neither AV. nor RV. distinguishes. Note 
that Lk. again omits the introductory djv, as in ver. 12. See on 
xii. 44. As to the Prophets comp. 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. 

& Gpets BXéwete. Here Mt., who has given the emphatic con- 
trast between “you” and the ancients at the outset, omits the 
- wets. One suspects that his arrangement of the pronouns is the 
original one. Lk. has no tyeis with dxovere. In 2 Cor. xi. 29 
we have an emphatic pronoun with the second verb and not with 
the first. 

25-29. The Lawyer’s Questions. This incident forms the 
introduction to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Comp. 
xii, 13-15, Xlv. 15, xv. 1-3. The identification of this lawyer with 
the one who asked, “Which is the great commandment in the 
law?” (Mk. xii. 28-32; Mt. xxii. 35-40) is precarious, but perhaps 
ought not to be set aside as impossible. There the question is theo- 
logical and speculative ; here it is practical. Place, introduction, 
and issue are quite different; and the quotation from the Law 


284 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 25, 26 


which is common to the narratives is here uttered by the lawyer, 
there by Christ. An identification with the man who had great 
possessions, and who asked the very same question as the lawyer 
asks here, although in a very different spirit (Mk. x. 17-22; Mt. 
xix. 16-22), is impossible, because Lk. himself records that in full 
(xvill. 18-23). The opening words of this narrative point to an 
Aramaic source. 

25. vopixds tis avéotn éxtrerpdfwv adtov. See on vii. 30. Ex- 
cepting Mt. xxii. 35, which is possibly parallel to this, vousxés is 
used by no other Evangelist. The dvéory implies a situation in 
which the company were seated. Neither this question nor the 
one respecting the great commandment was calculated to place 
Jesus in a difficulty, but rather to test His ability as a teacher: the 
exrreipalwy (see small print on iv. 12) does not imply a sinister 
attempt to entrap Him. This use of res (vv. 30, 31, 33, 38) 1S 
freq. in Lk. 

tli moujoas. The tense implies that by the performance of 
some one thing eternal life can be secured. What heroic act 
must be performed, or what great sacrifice made? The form of 
question involves an erroneous view of eternal life and its relation 
to this life. Contrast the Philippian gaoler (Acts xvi. 30). 

Lov aidviov KAynpovoujow. The verb is freq. in LXX of the 
occupation of Canaan by the Israelites (Deut. iv. 22, 26, vi. 1, 
etc.), and thence is transferred to the perfect possession to be 
enjoyed in the Kingdom of the Messiah (Ps. xxiv. 13, xxxvi. 9, 
II, 22, 29; Is. lx. 21); both uses being based upon the original 
promise to Abraham. See Wsctt. Afedvews, pp. 167-169. Lk. 
like Jn., never uses aidvios of anything but eternal beatitude 
(xvi. 9, xviii. 18, 30). The notion of endlessness, although not 
necessarily expressed, is probably implied in the word. See 
Wsctt. £pp. of St. John, pp. 204-208; App. E, Gosp. of S. John 
in Camb. Grk. Test. ; and the literature quoted in Zoeckler, Handb. 
ad. Theol. Wissft. iii. pp. 199-201. With the whole expression 
comp. of d€ dovot Kuplov KAnpovoyncover Conv év edppoovvy (Ps. Sol. 
xiv. 7), and dovot kupiov kAypovopynoarey erayyedlas Kupiov (xii. 8). 

26. °Ev 7 vouw. First with emphasis. A vopixds ought to 
know that év 7 véuw the answer to the question is plainly 
given: él Tov vopov abrov maparéure (Euthym.). 

Tas dvaywdokers; Equivalent to the Rabbinical formula, 
when scriptural evidence was wanted, ‘‘What readest thou?” 
But perhaps the zés implies a little more, viz. ‘to what effect”? 
The form of question does not necessarily imply a rebuke. For 
dvaywaokew see iv. 16. That Jesus pointed to the man’s phylactery 
and meant, ‘‘ What have you got written there?” is conjecture. 
That he had “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” on his 
phylactery, is improbable. The fst of the two laws was written 
on phylacteries, and the Jews recited it morning and evening, 


X. 26-29.} JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 285 


from Deut. vi. 3, xi. 13; hence it was the natural answer to 
Christ’s question. ‘That he adds the second law, from Lev. xix. 
18, is remarkable, and it may be that he was desirous of leading 
up to the question, “And who is my neighbour?” See D.Z.? art. 
“Frontlets” ; Schafi’s Herzog, art. “ Phylactery.” 


27. Here, as in Mk. xii. 30, we have four powers with which God is to 
be loved. Mt. xxii. 37 follows Heb. and LXX in giving ¢hree. They cover 
man’s physical, intellectual, and moral activity. Mk. and LXX have é€ 
throughout ; Mt. has év throughout; Lk. changes from é§ to &. For the 
last words comp. Rom. xili. 9. 


28. *OpOds dmexpiOns. Comp. ép0as expivas (vii. 43). In Mk. 
xii. 32 it is the scribe who commends Jesus for His answer. 

toto tote. Pres. imperat. ‘‘ Continually do this,” not merely 
do it once for all; with special reference to the form of the 
lawyer’s question (ver. 25). See Rom. ii. 13, x. 5; Lev. xviii. 5. 

29. Ghwv Sikardcar éautéy, Not merely “willing,” but “ zzshing 
to justify himself.” For what? Some say, for having omitted to 
perform this duty in the past. Others, for having asked such a 
question, the answer to which had been shown to be so simple. 
The latter is perhaps nearer the fact; but it almost involves the 
other. ‘ Wishing to put himself in the right,” he points out that 
the answer given is not adequate, because there is doubt as to 
the meaning of “one’s neighbour.” Qui multa interrogant non 
multa facere gestiunt (Beng.). For Sixatacar see on vil. 35 and 
Rom. i. 17. 

kal tis éotiv pou mAnotov; The question was a very real one 
to a Jew of that age. Lightfoot, ad /oc., quotes from Maimonides, 
“he excepts all Gentiles when he saith, His neighbour. An 
Israelite killing a stranger inhabitant, he doth not die for it by 
the Sanhedrim; because he said, If any one lift up himself 
against his neighbour.” 


Kat tls éorty pou wAnolov; The xal accepts what is said, and leads on 
to another question: comp. xviii. 26; Jn. ix. 36; 2 Cor.ii.2. Win. liii. 3. 
a, p. 545. For the omission of the art. before rAnoloy (uov perhaps taking 
its place) see Win. xix. 5. b, p. 163: but rAyoloy may be an adverb. 


80-87. §The Parable of the Good Samaritan. Entirely in 
harmony with the general character of this Gospel as teaching 
that righteousness and salvation are not the exclusive privilege of 
the Jew. The parable is not an answer to the original question 
(ver. 25), and therefore in no way implies that works of benevolence 
secure eternal life. It is an answer to the new question (ver. 29), 
and teaches that no one who is striving to love his neighbour as 
himself can be in doubt as to who is his neighbour. We may be- 
lieve that the narrative is not fiction, but history. Jesus would 
not be likely to invent such behaviour, and attribute it to priest, 


286 TIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 29, 80. 


Levite, and Samaritan, if it had not actually occurred. Nowhere 
else does He speak against priests or Levites. Moreover, the 
parable would have far more point if taken from real life.} 

80. SrohkaBdv. “Took him up” to reply to him. Here only 
in N.T. has troAapBdvw this meaning, which is quite classical and 
freq. in Job (ii. 4, iv. 1, vi. I, ix. 1, Xl. I, Xi. I, XV. I, XVL I, efc.). 
Contrast vii. 43; Acts ii. 15; Job xxv. 13, where it means “I 
suppose.” 


Here Vulg. has susczpzens, with szspiczens as v.J. in many MSS. Be- 
sides these two, Lat. Vet. has swdzczens (e) and respondens (f); but not 
excipiens, which would be an equivalent. 


“AvOpwrés tts KatéBawev. The road is downhill; but besides 
this we commonly talk of “going down” from the capital. The 
narrative implies that the man is a Jew. Jericho is about twenty 
miles from Jerusalem ; and the road still, as in Jerome’s day, has 
a bad name for brigandage from “the Arabian in the wilderness ” 
(Jer. iii. 2), Ze. the Bedawin robbers who infest the unfrequented 
roads. Sir F. Henniker was murdered here in 1820.? It is 
possible that Jesus was on this road at the time when He delivered 
the parable; for Bethany is on it, and the next event takes place 
there (vv. 35-42). 


wepiémecev Ayotats. Change from imperf. to aor. ‘Fell among 
robbers,” so that they were all round him. Quite classical ; comp. Jas. i. 2. 
Wetst. gives instances of this very phrase in profane authors, and it is in- 
correct to classify mepurlrrew as a medical word. For Agoris, ‘‘ robber” 
(xix. 46, xxii. 52; Jn. xviii. 40), as distinct from xAewrjs, “‘ thief” (xii. 33, 
393 Jn. xii. 6), see Trench, Syz. xliv. 


ot Kat éxSdcavtes adtdy. ‘“ Who, in addition to other violence, 
stripped him.” Robbers naturally plunder their victims, but do 


1“¢The spot indicated by our Lord as the scene of the parable is unmis- 
takable. About half-way down the descent from Jerusalem to Jericho, close to 
the deep gorge of Wady Kelt, the sides of which are honeycombed by a labyrinth 
of caves, in olden times and to the present day the resort of freebooters and 
outlaws, is a heap of ruins, marking the site of an ancient khan. The Kahn 
el Ahmar, as the ruin is called, possessed a deep well, with a scanty supply of 
water. Not another building or trace of human habitation is to be found on 
any part of the road, which descends 3000 feet from the neighbourhood of 
Bethany to the entrance into the plain of Jordan. Irregular projecting masses 
of rock and frequent sharp turns of the road afford everywhere safe cover and 
retreat for robbers” (Tristram, Eastern Customs, p. 220). 

2It was near Jericho that Pompey destroyed strongholds of brigands 
(Strabo, Geogr. xvi. 2. 41). Jerome explains ‘‘the Going up to Adummim ” or 
‘© Ascent of the Red” (Josh. xv. 7, xviil. 17), which is identified with this road, 
as so called from the blood which is there shed by robbers. The explanation 
is probably wrong, but the evidence for the robbers holds good (Ds Loczs Heb. 
s.v. Adummim). The Knights Templars protected pilgrims along this road. 
For a description of it see Stanley, Sz. &° Pal. p. 424; Keim, /es. of Nas. 


v. p. 71. 


x. 30-34.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 287 


not always strip them. Comp. Mt. xxvii. 28; with double accusa- 
tive, Mt. xxvii. 31; Mk. xv. 20. It was because he tried to keep 
his clothes, and also to disable him, that they added blows to 
robbery. For the phrase mAnyas émQévres comp. Acts xvi. 23; 
Rev. xxii. 18: in class. Grk. 7A. guBdAAev. Cicero has p/lagam 
alicui imponere (Pro Sest. xix. 44); also vulnera alicui imponere 
(De Fin. iv. 24. 66). For 4p8avq comp. 4 Mac. iv. 11. 

$1. kata cuyxupiav. Not exactly “by chance,” but “by way 
of coincidence, by concurrence.” Vulg. has accdit ut; Lat. Vet. 
Jortuito (aff, qr), forte (d), derepente (e), while several omit (b cil). 
The word occurs here only in N.T. and is rare elsewhere. In 
Hippocrates we have 8¢ aAAnv twa ovyxuptay and 7a azo ovyKupias. 
Neither ovvrvyia nor =. occurs in N.T.; and rixy only once 
or twice, ovrrvyia not once, in LX¥Y ° 2%ulte bone occasiones 
latent sub his que fortuita videantur. Scriptura nil describit 
temere ut fortuitum (Beng.). 

iepeds tis kateBavev. This implies that he also was on his 
way from Jerusalem. That he was going home after discharging 
his turn of service, and that Jericho was a priestly city, like 
Hebron, is conjecture. 

dvriumapy\Gev. ‘Went by opposite to him.” A rare word; 
here only in N.T. In Wisd. xvi. ro it has the contrary meaning, 
“came by opposite to them” to help them; 76 éAeos ydp cov 
dytizapnAGev kai idcaro aitovs. Comp. Mal. ii. 7-9. 


82. The insertion of yevduevos before xara rév térov (A) makes Addy 
belong to lédév, “‘ came and saw”: and thus the Levite is made to be more 
heartless than the priest, whom he seems to have been following. The 
priest saw and passed on; but the Levite came up to him quite close, saw, 
and passed on. But BLXZ omit yevéuevos, while D and other authorities 
omit €\@dy ; and it is not likely that both are genuine. Syr-Sin. omits one. 
Most editors now omit yevéuevos, but Field pleads for its retention, and 
would omit €A@éy (Otium Norozc. iii. p. 43). 


83. Lapapeitys S€ ts 68edwr. A despised schismatic, in marked 
sontrast to the orthodox clergy who had shown no kindness.} 
Comp. xvii. 16; Jn. iv. 39-42. He is not said to be xaraBaivur: 
he would not be coming from Jerusalem. 

jdOev Kat adtév. “Came down upon him, or “where he 
was,” or “towards him ” (Acts viii. 26, xvi. 7; Phil. iii. 14). The 
fear of being himself overtaken by brigands, or of being suspected 
of the robbery, does not influence him. “ Directly he saw him, 
forthwith (aor.) he was moved with compassion.” See on vii. 13. 

34. mpocehOdy. This neither of the others seems to have done: 


1 Blunt sees here a possible coincidence. Christ may have chosen a 
Samaritan for the benefactor, as a gentle rebuke to James and John for wish- 
ing just before this to call down fire on Samaritans (ix. 54). See Undesigned 
Coincidences, Pt. IV. xxxii. p. 300, 8th ed. : 


288 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 84, 35, 


they avoided coming near him. He was half-unconscious, an¢ 
they wished to get past without being asked to help. 

kaTédnoev TA Tpatpata adTod émyxéwv Eavoy Kat oivoy. These 
medical details would be specially interesting to Lk. ‘“ Bound up, 
pouring on, as he bound, oil and wine.” Neither compound 
occurs elsewhere in N.T. Comp. tpadua éorw xatadqoa (Ecclus. 
XXVil. 21); and, for érvyéw, Gen. xxviii. 18; Lev. v. 11. Oil and 
wine were recognized household remedies. The two were some- 
times mixed and used as a salve for wounds. See evidence in 
Wetst. Both rpatma and trpavparilw are pec. to Lk. 

émBiBdoas dé adtovy émi 16 TS.ov KtAvos. The verb is peculiar 
to Lk. in N.T. (xix. 35; Acts xxiii. 24), but classical and freq. in 
LXX. Comp. émBiBdcare tov vidv pov Zudwpov ext THY Hlovov 
tiv éunv (1 Kings 1. 33). Krivos (krdouar) is lit. “ property,” and 
‘so “cattle,” and especially a “beast of burden” (Acts xxiii. 245 
t Cor. xv. 39; Rev. xviii. 13). The mav8oxetov was probably a 
more substantial place of entertainment than a xardAvya: see on 
il. 7. The word occurs here only in bibl. Grk., and here only is 
stabulum used in the sense of “inn”: comp. stabularius in ver. 35. 
It is perhaps a colloquial word (Kennedy, Sources of NV.T. Grk. 
p. 74). Attic wavdoxetor. 


35. émi thy atpiov. ‘* Towards the morrow,” as Acts iv. § and én) rhpy 
Gpay Tis mpocevxfs (Acts ili. 1). Syr-Sin. has ‘‘at the dawn of the day.” In 
Mk. xv. I some texts read él 7d rpwl. This use of él is rare. Comp. ém 
tiv &w (Thue. ii. 84. 2). The éed@dyv after atpiov (AC) is not likely to be 
genuine ; but it would mean that he went outside before giving the money, 
to avoid being seen by the wounded man. 8 BDLX2 and most Versions 
om... 


éxBaday Svo Syvdpia. The verb does not necessarily imply 
any violence: “having put out, drawn out,” from his girdle; not 
“flung out”; comp. vi. 42; Mt. xii. 35, xill. 52. The two denarit 
would equal about four shillings, although in weight of silver 
much less than two shillings. See on vii. 41. 

mpoodaravjons. ‘Spend in addition” to the two denarii. 
Luc. Zp. Saturn. 39. From the Vulg. supererogaveris comes the 
technical expression opera supererogationts. 

éya év T@ émavépyecOal pe. The éys is very emphatic: “I, 
and not the wounded man, am responsible for payment.” Note 
the pres. infin. ‘While I am returning, in the course of my 

-return journey”: see on iii. 21. The verb occurs elsewhere in 
N.T. only xix. 15, but is classical and not rare in LXX. 

36, 37. The Moral of the Parable. Christ not only forces the 
lawyer to answer his own question, but shows that it has been 
asked from the wrong point of view. For the question, “ Who is 
my neighbour?” is substituted, ‘To whom am I neighbour? 
Whose claims on my neighbourly help do I recognize?” All the 


X. 86, 87.]  JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 289 


three were by proximity neighbours to the wounded man, and his 
claim was greater on the priest and Levite; but only the alien 
recognized any claim. The yeyovévat is very significant, and implies 
this recognition: “decame neighbour, proved neighbour”: comp. 
xix. 17; Heb. xi.6. “The neighbouring Jews became strangers, 
the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. 
It is not place, but love, which makes neighbourhood” (Words- 
worth). RV. is the only English Version which takes account of 
yeyovevar : ; Vulg. Luth. and Beza all treat it as elvas. 

87. “O moujoas 73 Edeos per adtod. The lawyer goes back to his 
own question, ti roujoas; He thereby avoids using the hateful 
name Samaritan: “He that showed the act of mercy upon him,” 
the éeos related of him. Comp. woujoar éXcos peta TOV TaTépwv 
qeav (i. 72), and éueyddvvey 7d cos aitrod pet airas (i. 58). 
The phrase is Hebraistic, and in N.T. peculiar to Lk. (Acts xiv. 
27, xv. 4): freq. in LXX (Gen. xxiv. 12; Judg. i. 24, viii. 35, etc.). 

Nopevou kat od moter époiws. Either, “Go; thou also do like- 
wise”; or, “Go thou also; do likewise.” Chrysostom seems to 
take it in the latter way: zopevov civ, dyai, cal ov, Kal oie 
épotws (xi. p. 109, B). There is a rather awkward asyndeton in 
either case; but xai oJ must be taken together. Comp. Mt. 
xxvi. 69; 2 Sam. xv. 19; Obad. 11. “Go, and do ¢how likewise” 
would be zopevov kai zoiet ov Suoiws. Field, Ottum Norvic. iii? p. 
44. Note the pres. imperat. “ Thou also habitually do likewise.” 
It is no single act, but lifelong conduct that is required. Also 
that cat fjon does not follow ofa, as in ver. 28; perhaps be- 
cause the parable says nothing about loving God, which does not 
come within its scope. It is an answer to the question, “Who is 
it that I ought to love as myself?” and we have no means of 
knowing that anything more than this isintended. Comp. vi. 31. 


The Fathers delight in mystical interpretations of the parable. For 
references and examples see Wordsw. Comm. in loco; Trench, Par. xvii. notes. 
Such things are permissible so long as they are not put forward as the meaning 
which the Propounder of the Parable designed to teach. That Christ Himself 
was a unique realization of the Good Samaritan is unquestionable. That He 
intended the Good Samaritan to represent Himself, in His dealings with fallen 
humanity, is more than we know.? 


88-42, §The Two Sisters of Bethany. That this incident 
took place at Bethany can hardly be doubted. If the sisters had 
not yet settled at Bethany, the place could hardly have been called 
% «apn Mapias cai Map@as (Jn. xi. 1). Jesus is on His way to 


1 Augustine’s attempt to prove the latter point is almost grotesque. The 
Jews said to Christ, ‘‘ Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil” (Jn. viii. 48). 
Jesus might have replied, ** Neither am I a Samaritan, nor have I a devil”: 

ut He said only, ‘I have not a devil.” Therefore He admitted that He was 
a Samaritan (Serm. clxxi. 2). 


19 


290 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |X. 88, 39 


or from a short visit to Jerusalem which Lk. does not mention. 
He perhaps inserts it here as a further answer to the question, 
“What must one do to inherit eternal life?” Mere benevolence, 
such as that of the Samaritan, is not enough. It must be united 
with, and be founded upon, habitual communion with the Divine. 
- “The enthusiasm of humanity,” if divorced from the love of God, 
is likely to degenerate into mere serving of tables. But the 
narrative may be here in its true chronological position. It is 
one of the most exquisite among the treasures which Lk. alone 
has preserved ; and the coincidence between it and Jn. xi. with 
regard to the characters of the two sisters, the incidents being 
totally different, is strong evidence of the historical truth of 
both.! 

38. “Ev 8 74 topetecPar atdtots. ‘‘ Now during their journey- 
ings”: see on ill. 21. As Lk. does not name the village, we may 
conjecture that he did not know where this occurred. One does 
not see how the mention of Bethany would have put the sisters 
in danger of persecution from the Jerusalem Jews. If that 
danger existed, the names of the sisters ought to have been 
suppressed. 

yur) 8é tis dvépate MdpOa dmeddéato aitév. She was evidently 
the mistress of the house, and probably the elder sister. That she 
was a widow, is pure conjecture. That she was the wife of Simon 
the leper, is an improbable conjecture (Jn. xii. 1, 2). The names 
Martha, Eleazar (Lazarus), and Simon have been found in an 
ancient cemetery at Bethany. The coincidence is curious, what- 
ever may be the explanation. Martha was not an uncommon 
name. Marius used to take about with him a Syrian woman 
named Martha, who was said to have the gift of prophecy (Plut. 
Mar. 414). It means “lady” or “mistress”: xipva. For évépare 
see on v. 27, and for Smodéxouar comp. xix. 6; Acts xix. 7; Jas. 
ii. 29. The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T. 


els tHv olkfav, This is probably the right reading, of which els révy 
olkov avrjs is the interpretation. Even without airjs there can be little 
doubt that Martha’s house is meant. 


89. 4 Kal mapaxalecbeioa mpds tods mé8as. The xaf can hardly 
be “even,” and the meaning “also” is not clear. Perhaps 
“Martha gave Him a welcome, and Mary also expressed her 
devotion in her own way,” is the kind of thought; or, “ Mary 
joined in the welcome, and also sat at His feet.” The meal has 


1 «But the characteristics of the two sisters are brought out in a very subtle 
way. In St. Luke the contrast is summed up, as it were, in one definite incident ; 
in St. John it is developed gradually in the course of a continuous narrative. 
In St. Luke the contrast is direct and trenchant, a contrast (one might almost 
say) of light and darkness. But in St. John the characters are shaded off, as 
it were, into one another” (Lft. Bzb/cal Essays, p. 38). 


X. 39-41.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 291 


not yet begun, for Martha is preparing it; and Mary is not 
sitting at table with Him, but at His feet as His disciple (Acts 
xxii. 3). For tod Kuptou see on v. 17 and vii. 13. The verb is 
class., but the 1 aor. part. is late Greek (Jos. Avz. vi. 11. 9). Note 
the imperf. jxovev: she continued to listen. 

40. mepieonato. ‘Was drawn about in different directions, 
distracted.” The word forms a marked contrast to zapaxaGec- 
Oeica. Comp. Eccles. i. 13, iii. 10, v. 19; Ecclus. xli. 4. 

émotaca dé eimev, Kipte. ‘And she came up and said”: see 
on ii. 38. Cov. has “stepte unto Him.” Other Versions previous 
to AV. have “stood.” The word perhaps indicates an impatient 
movement. Her temper is shown in her addressing the rebuke to 
Him rather than to her sister. Her saying 4 a8eh$7 pou instead of 
Mapidp is argumentum quasi ab iniguo (Beng.), and pévny is placed 
first for emphasis. The imperf. xatéAevwev expresses the continu- 
ance of the neglect. The word does not imply that Mary began 
to help and then left off, but that she ought to have helped, and 
from the first abstained. 


For etrrov . . - tva comp. Mk. iii. 9, and for dvriAauSdvw see oni. 54. 
Here the meaning of ovvavr. is ‘‘ take hold along with me, help me.” Comp. 
Rom. viii. 26; Exod. xviii. 22; Ps. Ixxxix. 22. See Field, Otsum Norvic. 
fii. p. 44. 


41. Mdp0a, Mdp0a, pepiuvas. The repetition of the name con- 
veys an expression of affection and concern: xxii. 31; Acts ix. 4; 
Mt. vii. 21. Comp. Mk. ix. 36; Rom. vili. 15 ; Gal. iv. 16, and 
see on vill. 24.1 The verb is a strong one, “thou art anxious,” 
and implies division and distraction of mind (sepifw), which 
believers ought to avoid: Mt. vi. 25, 28, 31, 34; Lk. xii. 11, 22, 
26; Phil. iv. 26. Comp. pépimva, vili. 14, xxi. 34, and especially 
1 Pet. v. 7, where human anxiety (épiuva) is set against Divine 
Providence (Ae). 

kat OopuBdfy. “And art in a tumult, bustle.” The readings 
vary much, and certainty is not obtainable, respecting the central 
portion of Christ’s rebuke. The form @opvBafouar seems to occur 
nowhere else: tup8alw is fairly common: epi tavtas tupBaleo Oat 
(Aristoph. Pax. 1007). An unusual word would be likely to be 
changed into a familiar one. In any case pepiurds refers to the 
mental distraction, and the second verb to the external agitation. 
Martha complains of having no one to help her ; but it was by her 
own choice that she had so much to do. : 


1 Repetitio nominis indicium est delectationis, aut movends intentionis ut 
audiret intentius (Aug.). D doubles veavicxe in vii. 14. It is not serving, 
but excess in it, that is rebuked; and this is not rebuked until Martha begins 
to find fault with her sister. See Wordsw. It is characteristic of Mary that 
she makes no reply, but leaves all to the Master. 


292 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 41, 42, 


The difference between @opuBdfy (8 BC D L) and tupBdty (A P) is unim- 
portant : the question is as to the words which ought to stand between Mdp@a 
and Mapidy. As regards the first part the decision is not difficult. Nearly 
all Greek MSS. have pepiuvds xal OopvBagy (or tupBdfy) wept wédAda after 
Mdp@a, and have ydp or dé after Mapidu or Mapla. But on the evidence of 
certain Latin authorities (ab e ff,i Amb.) the Revisers and WH. give a place 
in the margin to OopvBdgy only after Mdp@a, with neither ydp nor dé after 
Mapidu: and these same authorities with D omit all that lies between @opvu- 
Bdgp and Mapidu, This curt abrupt reading may be rejected. It is less easy 
to determine the second part. We may reject éAlywy dé éorw xpela, which 
has very little support. Both this reading and évés 6é éorw xpela 
(ACPI ATI) are probably corruptions of éAlywv dé dorw xpela 4 évds 
(SBC?L). The last might be a conflate reading from the other two, if 
the evidence did not show that it is older than éAlywv dé éoriw xpela: it is 
found in Boh. and Aeth. and also in Origen. See Sanday, Ags. ad N.T. 
p- 119. Syr-Sin. has ‘‘ Martha, Martha, Mary hath chosen for herself the 
good part, which,” etc. 

ddiywv 8€ éotw xpela 4H Evds. The dAtywv is opposed to zept 
mwodAd, and évés has a double meaning, partly opposed to zepi 
woAXd, partly anticipatory of the aya) pepis. There was no need 
of an elaborate meal ; a few things, or one, would suffice! Indeed 
only one portion was necessary ;—that which Mary had chosen. 
Both xpeia and pepis are used of food; 7a zpos tHv xpetav being 
necessaries as distinct from ra mpds tiv tpudyy. For pepis as a 
“portion” of food comp. Gen. xliii. 34; Deut. xviii. 8; 1 Sam. 
i. 4, ix. 23; Neh. viii. 12, xii. 47; Eccles. xi. 2. For pepis in the 
higher sense comp. Kvpuos 7) pepis THs KAnpovopias pov (Ps. xv. 5). 
See also Ps, Ixxiii. 26, cxix. 57, cxlii. 5; Lam. iii. 24; Ps. Sol. v. 6, 
xiv. 3. 
Neither é\lywy nor évés can be masc., because the opposition is to woA)d. 


And if the meaning were ‘‘ Few Zeof/e are wanted for serving, or only one,” 
we should require “ds, as only women are mentioned. 


42. Mapidp ydp. Explanation of évés, and hence the yap. Not 
many things are needed, but only one, as Mary’s conduct shows. 
The dp (§ BL A) would easily be smoothed into 6¢ (A CP), or omitted 
as difficult (D). Versions and Fathers support all three readings. WH. ane 
RV. adopt dp. 
thy dyabiy pepisa. “The good part.” No comparison is 
stated ; but it is implied that Martha’s choice is inferior. In com- 
parison with Mary’s it cannot be called “the good part,” or “the 
one thing” necessary, although it is not condemned as bad. Her 
distracting anxiety was the outcome of affection. Lae pars 
Marthe non reprehenditur, sed Marie laudatur (Bede). Con- 
firmata Marie immunitas (Beng.). Comp. Jn. vi. 27. 


1 Comp. Lucian, ‘‘But what if a guest at the same table neglects all that great 
variety of dishes, and chooses from those that are nearest to him one that suffices 
for his need, and is content with that alone, without even looking at all the rest, 
is not he the stronger and the better man?” (Cynic. 7). 


%. 42.] | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 293 


Atts odk GdatpeOycetat atts. ‘Which is of such a character 
as not to be taken away from her.” Activa vita cum corpore deficit. 
Quis enim in xterna patria panem esurienti porrigat, ubi nemo sitit? 
quis mortuum sepeliat, ubi nemo moritur? Contemplativa autem hic 
incipitur, ut in celesti patria perficiatur (Greg. Magn. in LEzech. 
ii. 34). 

The omission of the prep. before the gen. (N BDL, ez ae, #//¢ bilgq) is 
unusial. Hence AC PIA etc. insert dx’ before airjjs (ad ea Vulg. f). 

In this narrative of the two sisters in the unnamed village Lk. unconsciously 
supplies historical support to the Johannine account of the raising of a 
If that miracle is to be successfully discredited, it is necessary to weaken the 
support which this narrative supplies. The Tiibingen school propose to resolve 
it into a parable, in which Martha represents Judaic Christianity, with its trust 
in the works of the Law; while Mary represents Pauline Christianity, reposing 
simply upon faith. Or, still more definitely, Martha is the impulsive Peter, 
Mary the philosophic Paul. But this is quite incredible. Even Lk. has not the 
literary skill to invent so exquisite a story for any purpose whatever. And 
Martha was not occupied with legal ceremonial, but with service in honour of 
Christ. This service was not condemned: it was her excitement and fault-find- 
ing that were rebuked. The story, whether an invention or not, is ill adapted 
to the purpose which is assumed as the cause of its production. 


XI. 1-18. §On Prayer. Lk. shows no knowledge of time or 
place, and it is possible that the paragraph ought to be placed 
earlier in the ministry. Mt. places the giving of the Lord’s Prayer 
much earlier, in the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 5-15). Both 
arrangements may be right. Christ may have delivered the Prayer 
once spontaneously to a large number of disciples, and again at 
the request of a disciple to a smaller group, who were not present 
on the first occasion. But if the Prayer was delivered only once, 
then it is Lk. rather than Mt. who gives the historic occasion 
(Neander, De Wette, Holtzmann, Weiss, Godet, etc. See Page, 
Expositor, 3rd series, vii. p. 433). Mt. might insert it to exemplify 
Christ’s teaching on prayer. Lk. would not invent this special 
incident. 

The section has three divisions, of which the second and third 
belong to the same occasion: the Lord’s Prayer (1-4) ; the Friend 
at Midnight (5-8); Exhortation to Perseverance in Prayer (9-13). 

1-4. The Lord’s Prayer. For abundant literature see Herzog, 
PRE. iv. p. 772; Keim, Jes. of Naz. iii. p. 337. For the 
liturgical use of the Prayer see D. Chr. Ant. ii. p. 1056; Kraus, 
Real-Ence. a. Chr. Alt.i. p. 562. 


Note the marks of Luke’s style: éyévero, év 7G efvat, elvar rpocevxo- 
beevov, elwev tpds, elrev Sé, Td Kad’ Huépay, airol, ravyrl. The last 
three, which are in the Prayer itself, point to the conclusion that at least some 
of the differences in wording between this form and that in Mt. are due to Lk., 
and that the form in Mt. better represents the original, which would be in 
Aramaic. The differences cannot be accounted for by independent translation. 
The Greek of the two forms is too similar for that, especially in the use of the 


204 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XL1,2 


perplexing word émovo.os. Both Evangelists must have had the Prayer in 
Greek. F. H. Chase supposes that the disciples adapted the Prayer for use on 
special occasions, either by alterations or additions, and that doth forms exhibit 
the Prayer as changed for liturgical purposes, émiovc.os being one of these later 
features ( Zexts &° Studies, vol. i. No. 3, Camb. 1891). 


- 1. mpoceuxdpevov. See Introd. § 6.i.b. That this was at dawn, 
or at one of the usual hours of prayer, is conjecture. Nothing is 
known of a form of prayer taught by the Baptist; but Rabbis 
sometimes drew up such forms for their disciples. 

2. eimev 8€ adrois. The disciple had said diagov pas, and 
Jesus includes all in His reply. 


After rpooetyno6e D inserts much from Mt. vi. 7, and in the Lat. has the 
form multzloguentia for multzloguium : putant enim quidam quia in multilo- 
quentia swa exandzentur, 


Ndtep. There is little doubt that the texts of Lk. which give 
the more full form of the Prayer have been assimilated to Mt. by 
inserting the three clauses which Lk. omits.1 The temptation to 
supply supposed deficiencies would be very strong ; for the copyists 
would be familiar with the liturgical use of the longer form, and 
would regard the abbreviation of such a prayer as intolerable. The 
widespread omission is inexplicable, if the three clauses are genuine; 
the widespread insertion is quite intelligible, if they are not. The 
express testimony of Origen, that in the texts of Lk. known to him 
the clauses were wanting, would in itself be almost conclusive ; and 
about the second and third omitted clauses we have the express 
testimony of Augustine also (Zzchir. cxvi.: see Wordsworth’s 
Vulg. 2 Joco). Syr-Sin. has “Father, hallowed be Thy name. 
And Thy kingdom come. <Axd give us the continual bread of every 
vay. And forgive us our sins; azd we also, we forgive everyone 
who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” A few 
authorities, which omit the rest, add 7ué4v to Ilarep, and four have 
sancte for noster (ac ff, 1). 

In O.T. God is seldom spoken of as a Father, and then in 
reference to the nation (Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixilil. 16; Jer. iii. 4, 19, 
xxxi. 9; Mal. i. 6, ii. 10), not to the individual. In this, as in 
many things, the Apocrypha links O.T. with N.T. Individuals 
begin to speak of God as their Father (Wisd. ii. 16, xiv. 3 ; Ecclus. 
Xxili. i. 4, li. 10; Tobit xiii. 4; 3 Mac. vi. 3), but without showing 


1 For the details of the evidence see Sanday, 4f/. ad N.T. p. 119. In 
general it is NBL, Vulg. Arm., Orig. Tert., which omit the clauses in ques- 
tion ; but & is on the other side with regard to yevn@jTw 7d OéAnud cov, K.T.r. 
Other authorities omit one or more of the clauses. Those which contain the 
clauses vary as to the wording of the first two. ‘‘ Neither accident nor intention 
can adequately account for such clear evidence as there is in favour of so large an 
omission, if S. Luke’s Gospel had originally contained the clauses in question” 
(Hammond, Zextual Criticism applied to N.T. p. 83, Oxford, 1890). 


XL 2,8] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 295 


what right they have to consider themselves sons rather than 
servants. Christ gave His disciples éfovcvay réxva cod yevéo Gat 
(Jn. i. 12; comp. iii. 3; Rom. viii. 23; Gal. iv. 5). But we must 
notice how entirely free from Jewish elements the Prayer is. It is 
not addressed to the “Lord God of Israel,” nor does it ask for 
blessings upon Israel. See Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 416. 

dy.aoOjTo. “Let it be acknowledged to be holy, treated as 
holy, venerated.” Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 15 ; Is. xxix. 23; Ezek. xx. 41, 
XXXVili. 23; Ecclus. xxxili. (xxxvi.) 4. 

+3 Svopd gov. A common expression in both O.T. and N.T. 
It is not a mere periphrasis for God. It suggests His revealed 
attributes and His relation to us. Comp. oi dyav@vres 70 dvopa 
gov (Ps. v. 12); of yryvwoxovtes 76 Gvopd cov (Ps. ix. 11) ; od BeBy- 
Adoes 70 Gvopa 76 ayov (Lev. xvili. 21). It is freq. in Ps. Sod. (v. 1, 
Vii. 5, Vili. 31, ix. 18, xv. 4, etc.). Codex D adds to this petition 
the words éq’ yas, szper nos, which may be an independent addi- 
tion, or a survival of the petition for the coming of the Spirit of 
which there are traces elsewhere.! 

€Odtw  Bacideia cov. It is asserted that in bibl. Grk. Baou- 
Aefa is the abstract noun, not of BactAc’s, but of xvpros, and should 
therefore be rendered “dominion” rather than “kingdom.” Had 
“kingdom” been meant, SaciAevov would have been more distinct, 
a word current then, and still the only designation in modern 
Greek. The petition therefore means, “Thy sway be extended 
from heaven to this world (now ruled by the adversary), so as to 
extirpate wickedness.” See A. N. Jannaris in Contemp. Rev. 
Oct. 1894, p. 585. For Rabbinical parallels to these first two 
petitions see Wetst. on Mt. vi. 9, 10. 


For such mixed forms as é\@drw, which is specially common, see on i. 59. 


8. From prayers for the glory of God and the highest good of 
all we pass on to personal needs. 

tov émovovov. We are still in ignorance as to the origin and 
exact meaning of this remarkable word. It appears here first in 
Greek literature, and is the only epithet in the whole Prayer. And 
it is possible that in the original Aramaic form there was nothing 


1 There is evidence from Tertullian (Adv. Mare. iv. 26), from Gregory 
Nyssen (De Orat. Dom. ed. Krabinger, p. 60), and from an important cursive 
(Cod. Ev. 604 = 700 Gregory), elaborately edited by Hoskier (1890), that the 
Lord’s Prayer in Lk. sometimes contained a petition for the gift of the Spirit, 
instead either of ‘‘Thy kingdom come” or of ‘‘Hallowed be Thy name.” In 
Gregory and Cod. Ev. 604 the petition runs thus: "E\@érw 7d avedud cov [7d 
dyov] ép’ juas Kal kabapicdrw judas ; but in Gregory 7d dyov is doubtfu’ This 
addition may have been made when the Prayer was used at the laying on of 
hands, and thus have got into some texts of Lk. Chase in 7exts & Studies, 
i. 3, p. 28. The é¢’ judas of D may have come from this addition. Comp. Zz 
uns komme dein Rezch. 


296 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XL 3. 


equivalent to it. The presence of the « (érovoros, not émovetos) 
makes the derivation from éetvat, érdv, or éxi and ovoia very 
doubtful. With Grotius, Scaliger, Wetstein, Fritzsche, Winer, 
Meyer, Bishop Lightfoot, and others, we may suppose that évovczos 
comes from ézudv, perhaps with special reference to 4 émodea, “ the 
coming day.” The testimony of the most ancient Versions is 
strongly in favour of the derivation from éméva: and of a meaning 
having reference to ¢me, whether “of to-morrow,” or “that 
cometh,” or “for the coming day,” or “daily,” ‘“ continual,” or 
“for the day.” 

Jerome found guotidianum as the translation both in Mt, and Lk. He sub- 
stituted supersubstantzalem in Mt. and left guotedanwm in Lk., thus producing 
a widespread impression that the Evangelists use different words. Cod. Gall. 
has sapersubstantialem in Lk. See Lft. On a Fresh Revision of the N.T. 
App. i. pp. 218-260, 3rd ed. For the other views see McClellan, Zhe W.7. 
pp. 632-647. Chase confirms Lft., and contends that (1) This petition refers to 
bodily needs ; (2) The epithet is temporal, not qualitative ; ; (3) The epithet is 
not part of the original form of the petition, and is due to liturgical use ; (4) All 
the phenomena may be reasonably explained if we assume that the clause origin- 
ally was ‘*Give us our (ov the) bread of the day” (Zexts & Studzes, i. 3, 

2-— 

es aes contends that the word has nothing to do with time at all. He 
points to the use in LXX of zrepiovatos in the sense of ‘‘ constituting a property” 
(Exod. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18), as obviously coined from 7reptov- 
ola, ‘* wealth, abundance,” for the translation of the Hebrew seguila, And he 
interprets, ‘‘ Ask not for bread meptovatov, to be treasured up as wealth (segulla, 
@noavpds), but for bread émovcvov, mere bread.” Accordingly the term €zov- 
gos is a new formation coined for the purpose, on the analogy of, and as a direct 
allusion and contrast to, meptovovos, that is, intended to imply the opposite 
meaning. He considers that the formation 7epiovcies was apparently facilitated 
by the existence of such words as ovotos, Exovcros, €fedovoros, and that it was 
the existence of meprovovos which produced the form ézvocses instead of émrovatos. 
So also in the main Tholuck. 

Sisou jpiv. ‘Continually give to us,” instead of Sés in Mt. 
The change of tense brings with it a corresponding change of 
adverb: didov juiv 16 Kal” yyépay for dds Hiv onwepov: “ continually 
give day by day” for ‘“‘ Give once for all to-day.” In N.T. 76 xa@” 
np€pav is peculiar to Lk. (xix. 47; Acts xvii. 11). This fact and 
the insertion of his favourite tavré with ddeiAovr, and the substi- 
tution of his favourite kat atroé for kat jets with adéopuer, incline 
us to believe that some of the differences between this form of the 
Prayer and that in Mt. are due to Lk. himself. The petition in 
Lk. embraces more than the petition in Mt. In Mt. we pray, 
“Give us to-day our bread for the coming day,” which in the morn- 
ing would mean the bread for that day, and in the evening the 
bread for the next day. In Lk. we Pray, ss Continually give us 
day by day our bread for the coming day.” One stage in advance 
is asked for, but no more: “one step enough for me.” 

D here has ovepov, and most Latin texts have odie. But Codd. A niat. 
Gat. Turon. Germ. 2 support 76 xa’ 4uépay with cotzdze or quotzdie, 


JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 207 


4. ras dpaptias jpav. Mt. has ra ddeAjpara ypor, and there 
is reason for believing that Mt. is here closer to the Aramaic 
original. - The é¢eidovr of Lk. points to this, and sy does rv 
Spernv jpav in the Didaché (viii. 2). Anyone accustomed to LXX 
would be likely to prefer the familiar dpes ras duaprias (Ps. XXiv. 18; 
comp. Num. xiv. 19; Ex. xxxii. 32; Gen. 1. 17), even if iess literal. 
Moreover, é¢eAnpwata would be more likely to be misunderstood 
by Gentile readers. 

kal yap adtol ddiowev. For this Mt. has as Kal ypets apnkapev. 
The Old Syriac has the future in hoth Mt. and Lk., and in Lk. it 
has what may be the original form of the petition : ‘e Remit to us, 
and we also will remit.” ‘Tertullian seems to have had the future 
in his mind when he wrote Deditoribus denique dimissuros nos in 
oratione profitemur (De FPudic. ii.). If this is correct, dplopey is 
closer to the original than ad¢yxayev is. But the connexion is the 
same, whether we ask for forgiveness because we ave forgiven, or 
because we do forgive, or because we w/// forgive. It was a Jewish 
saying, Dies expiationis non expiationis donec cum proximtis in gratiam 
vedierts. 


The form d¢lw is found Mk. i. 34, xi. 16; Rev. xi. 9. Comp. cvvlw, Mt. 
xiii. 13; WH. ii. App. p. 167. 


mavtt opetdovte piv. Here the rots dderérars yudv of Mt. looks 
more like the original form, as being simpler. The introduction 
of zav7é is in harmony with Lk.’s usage: see on Vi. 30, Vii. 35, ix. 43. 

eicevéyxys. ‘‘ Bring into.” The verb occurs five times in Lk. 
(v. 18, 19, xii. 11 ; Acts xvii. 20) and thrice elsewhere (Mt. vi. 13 ; 
1 Tim. vi. 7; Heb. xiii. 11) ; and everywhere, except in the Lord’s 
Prayer, it is rendered in AV. by “bring,” not “lead.” Jn Lk. 
eioayew is also very common (ii. 27, xiv. 21, xxii. 54; Acts vii. 45, 
ix. 8, etc.). The latter word implies guidance more strongly than 
cioéepew does. For examples of the petition comp. xxii. 40, 46; 
Mk. xiv. 38; Mt. xxvi. 41. The inconsistency between this peti- 
tion and Jas. i. 2 is only apparent, not real. This petition refers 
especially to the internal solicitations of the devil, as is shown by 
the second half of it, as given in Mt., “ but deliver us from the evil 
one.” §, James refers chiefly to external trials, such as poverty 
of intellect (i. 5), or of substance (i. 9), or persecution (ii. 6, 7). 
Moreover, there is no inconsistency in rejoicing in temptations 
when God in His wisdom allows them to molest us, and yet pray- 
ing to be preserved from such trials, because of our natural weak- 
ness. Aug. Zf. cxxi. 14, cxlv. 7, 8; Hooker, Zecles. Pol. v. 48. 13. 


1 Gregory Nyssen goes so far as to make 6 metpag pos a name for the devil : 
&pa 6 meipacuts Te Kal 6 movypods év Te Kal Kata Thy onpaclay éorl (De Orat. 
Dom. v., Migne, xliv. 1192). So also Nilus, the friend and pepil of of Chrysose 
tom : weipac ues pev éyerat Kal avrds 6 Sean (Zp. 1., Migne, lxxix. 573). 


298 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 4-6. 


There is a very early Latin gloss on e os znducas which found its way into 
the text of the Prayer itself. Qzzs on sinet nos deduct in temptationem ? asks 
Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. iv. 26). Ne patiaris mos zxduct, or me passus fueris 
induct nos, is Cyprian’s form (De Dom. Orat, xxv.). Augustine says, Multi pre- 
cando tta dicunt, Ne nos patiaris znduct in temptationem (De Serm. Dom. ix. 30, 
Migne, xxxiv. 1282; De Dono Persev. Migne, xlv. 1000). And several MSS. of 
the Old Latin have these or similar readings (Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. ii. 
Oxford, 1886, p. 32). Dionysius of Alexandria explains the petition as meaning 
this: xal 6) kal ph eloevéyxns quads eis wetpacuov, Tovr’ €ott wh edzys Tuas 
éumecety els mecpagudv (Migne, x. 1601). Evidently the idea of God’s leading 
us into temptation was from early times felt to be a difficulty; and this gloss 
may have been used first in private prayer, then in the liturgies, and thence have 
found its way into Latin texts of the Gospels. 

Jannaris contends that this is not a gloss, but a correct translation of the 
Greek. He holds that in the time of Christ the active of this verb was fast 
acquiring the force of the middle, and that elceveyxety = eloevéyxacOu, ‘‘to 
have one brought into.” The petition then means, ‘‘ Have us not brought into 
temptation.” And he suggests that the true reading may be the middle, elce- 
véyxy, to which s has been added by a mistake. The evidence, however, is too 
uniform for that to be probable. 

There is yet another gloss, which probably has the same origin, viz. the 
wish to avoid the difficulty of the thought that God leads us into temptation : 
ne inducas nos in temptationem quam ferre non possumus (Jerome 22 Lzech, 
xlviii. 16; comp. Hilary zz Ps. cxviii.). Pseudo-Augustine combines the 
two: ze patiares nos induct in temptalionem quam ferre non possumus (Serm. 
lxxxiv.). ‘‘ The fact that these glosses occur in writers who are separated from 
each other in time and circumstance, and that they are found in Liturgies be- 
longing to different families, shows very clearly that they must be due to very 
early liturgical usage” (Chase, pp. 63-69). That Lk. omitted dda pioas 
judas ard Tod movnpod because he saw that deliverance from the tempter is in- 
cluded in preservation from temptation, is less probable than that this clause 
was wanting (very possibly for this reason) in the liturgical form which he 
gives. All authorities here, and the best authorities in Mt., omit the doxology, 
which is no doubt a liturgical addition to the Prayer. See Treg. on Mt. 
vi. 13. 


5-8. §The Parable of the Friend at Midnight. This parable 
is parallel to that of the Unjust Judge (xviii. 1-8). Both of 
them are peculiar to Lk., whose Gospel is in a special sense 
the Gospel of Prayer; and they both teach that prayer must 
be importunate and persevering. So far as they differ, the one 
shows that prayer is never out of season, the other that it is sure 
to bring a blessing and not a curse. 

5,6. Tis é& tuav. The sentence is irregularly constructed: 
1) the interrogative is lost in the prolongation of the sentence; 
t the future (fe, wopevoerar) drifts into the deliberative subjunc- 
tive (cir), which in some texts has been corrected to the future 
(épc). Excepting Mt. vi. 27, ris é& tuév is peculiar to Lk. (xii. 
25, xiv. 28, xv. 4, xvii. 7). Win. xli. 4. b, p. 357. Excepting Mk. 
Xlll. 35, pecovuKtiov is peculiar to Lk. (Acts xvi. 25, xx. 7). In 
the East it is common to travel by night to avoid the heat. 

dire, xpiodv pot tpets dptous. As distinct from davetfw (“I 
lend on interest” as a matter of business), xéxpn, which occurs 


XI. 6-11.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 299 


here only in N.T., is “I allow the use of” as a friendly act. There 
is no need to seek any meaning in the number three. For tapa- 
rlOnp of food comp. ix. 16; Mk. vi. 41, vill. 6. 

7. Mn pou Komrous mdépexe. It is the trouble that he minds, not 
the parting with the bread. When he has once got up (avaoras, 
ver. 8), he gives him as much as he wants. For xémous wapéxewv 
comp. Mt. xxvi. 10; Mk. xiv. 6; Gal. vi. 17; and for xézros see 
Lft. Zpp. p. 26. 


pet énov eis tHv Kolryv eloly. Prep. of motion after verb of rest; 
comp. Mk. fii. 1], x. 10; Acts vili. 40: and plur. verb after neut. plur., 
the persons being animate ; ule Bale x. 21; Mk. iii. 11, v. 13. Win. 1. 


4. b, pp. 516, 518, lviii. 3. B, p 
. eb kal, As distinct aes a el, ef kal implies that the supposition 


is a fact, ‘‘although”: xviii. 45 2 Cor. xii. II, vil. 8; I Pet. iii. 14. For 
él kal . - ye comp. xviii. 4, 53 Win. lili. 7. b, Pp. 554. 

ov Bde. “« Will vefuse to rise and give.” The negative is part of the 
verb and is not affected by the ef. Otherwise we should have had m7: xvi. 31, 
xviii. 4; Rom. viii. 9; Mt. xxvi. 42; 1 Cor. vii. 9. The use is classical. 
Soph. 47. 1131. Sinem, Lang. of N.T. p. 184; Win. lv. 2. c, p. 599. 

dud ye. In N.T. ye is rare, except as strengthening other particles; 
xviii. 5; 1 Cor. iv. 8: “At least because of.” 


dveidiay. ‘Absence of aidws, shamelessness”; Ecclus. xxv. 
22; here only in N.T. 

9-18. Exhortation to Perseverance in Prayer, based on the 
preceding parable and confirmed (11-13) by personal experience. 
Mt. has the same almost verbatim as part of the Sermon on the 
Mount (vii. 7-11). 

9. Kay bpiv héyw. “also say to you”: the éydé is emphatic 
by being expressed, the iuty by position; contrast ver. 8, and 
see on xvi. 9. The parable teaches them; /esws also teaches 
them. The parable shows how the urgent supplicant fared ; the 
disciples may know how /Zey will fare. The three commands are 
obviously taken from the parable, and they form a climax of in- 
creasing earnestness. They are all pres. imperat. “ Continue 
asking, seeking, knocking.” Comp. Jn. xvi. 24; Mt. xxi. 22; Mk. 
xl. 24. 

10. AapBdver . . . ebptoxer. The parallel with ver. 9 would 
be more exact if these two verbs, as well as dvovryyoera, were 
futures. But here, as in Mt. vii. 8, dvotyerat (BD) is possibly 
the true reading 

11. tov matépa. ‘As being his father.” Mt. has dv@pwzos, 
“as a human being,” or (more simply) “person.” The construc- 
tion is broken, and can scarcely be rendered literally. ‘Of which 
of you as being his father will the son ask for a fish? Will he 
for a fish hand him a serpent?” The question ought to have 
continued, “and for a fish receive a serpent”; but the abrupt 
change to the father’s side of the transaction is very emphatic. 


300 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 11-18. 


For py interrog. when a negative reply is expected comp. v. 34, 
— XVii. 9, Xxil - 35> : 3 : 

ph émddce. Will he give over, hand to him”: xxiv. 30, 42; 
Acts xv. 30. 


The text is confused, and it is doubtful whether we ought to have two 
pairs, as in Mt., or three. If two, they are not the same two as in Mt. 
There we have the loaf and the stone with the fish and the serpent. Here 
we have the fish and the serpent with the egg and the scorpion. But perhaps 
before these we ought to have the loaf and the stone, although B and some 
other authorities omit. The insertion from Mt., however, is more intelligible 
than the omission. 


12. cxopriov. x. 19; Rev. ix. 3, 9, 10; Deut. viii. 15; Ezek. 
ii. 6. When its limbs are closed round it, it is egg-shaped. 
Bread, dried fish, and hardboiled eggs are ordinary food in the 
East. It is probable that some of these pairs, especially “a stone 
for a loaf,” were proverbial expressions. ‘A scorpion for a fish,” 
ayti mepkns oKoptiov, seems to have been a Greek proverb. The 
meaning here is, that in answer to prayer God gives neither what 
is useless (a stone) nor what is harmful (a serpent or scorpion). 

18. movnpot smdpxortes. “Being evil from the first, evil 
already”: much stronger than dytes “(Mt.). Lilustre testimonium 
de peccato original (Beng.). See on vili. 41 and xxiii. 50. 

Sopata. Mt. vii. 11; Eph. iv. 8; Phil. iv. 17. The word is 
very freq. in LXX, where it represents ten different Hebrew 
words. 

6 é€ odpavod. Pregnant construction for 6 év otpdvw e& otpavod 
Séce: comp. ix. 61; Col. iv. 16. Win. lxvi. 6, p. 784. With 
the assurance here given comp. aireirw rapa tot Sidovros @cod racw 
GOs kal pi) dvediLovros (Jas. i. 5). The change from émiddce 
to ducer in both Lk. and Mt. is noteworthy: the idea of “hand- 
ing over” would here be out of place. 

mvedpa Gyiov. See on i. 15. Mt. has dyaa: One of the 
latest maintainers of the theory that Lk. is strongly influenced by 
Ebionism, remarks on this difference between Mt. and Lk., 
“From this important deviation in Luke’s version of this passage 
we learn that the course of thought is from the material to the 
spiritual : ae mercies, even daily bread, are transcended 
altogether. . This is one of the most important passages in 
Iuke that can be cited in support of an Ebionite source for much 
ot his Gospel.” This may well be correct: in which case the 
t stal arnount of support is not strong. 


D and some other authorities have dyafdv déua here. Hence various 
sonflations: ,rvetua dyabdv (L8), bomum donum spiritus sancti (Aeth.). 
From donum datum (bcd ff, ilr), bona data (aq), spzrztum bonum (Vulg.), 
spiritum bonum datum (E), etc. Assimilation to the first half of the verse 
ss the source of corruption. 


XI. 14-17.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 301 


14-26. The Dumb Demoniac and the Blasphemy of the 
Pharisees. Mt. xii. 22-30; Mk. ili. 19-27. 

14. Saipdrov kwpdv. The demon is called dumb because it 
made the man dumb: Mt. has rv@dAdv cai xwddv. When the 
demon is cast out, it is the man who speaks, éAdAncev 6 kwdos. 
For éyéveto see p. 45. 

atpacay. Stupebant (a,il), obstupebant (b), stupuerunt (ff). 
Mt. has éé’oravro. The combination of dumbness and blindness 
with possession made them suppose that no exorcist could succeed 
in suchacase. Probably the man was deaf also, so that there 
seemed to be no avenue through which the exorcist could com- 
municate with a victim who could neither see him, nor hear him, 
nor reply to his manipulations. 

15. twés S¢ e& attav eimay. This is very vague. Mt. says 
ot @apicator, and Mk. still more definitely of ypapyparets ot dd 
*IepoooAvpwv KataBdavtes. They had probably come on purpose to 
watch Him and oppose Him. It was at Jerusalem about this time 
that they had said, “Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil,” and, 
“ He hath a devil, and is mad” (Jn. viii. 48, x. 20). 

°Ev BeeLeBovA. “In the power of B.” The orthography, 
etymology, and application of the name are uncertain. Here, vz. 
18,19; Mt. x. 25, xli. 24, 27, NB have BeefeGovdA, and B has this 
Mk. iii. 22. The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. and nowhere 
at all in O.T. With the form BeeAfeBovA comp. Baad pviav 
(2 Kings i. 2, 3, 6) and Mviav (Jos. Anz. ix. 2. 1) for Beelzebub = 
“Lord of flies.” But BeedXfeBovB is found in no Greek MS. of 
N.T., and the form See/zebub owes its prevalence to the Vulgate ; 
but even there some MSS. have Jdee/zebu/. With the termination 
-BovB the connexion with the Ekronite god of flies must be 
abandoned. BeedfeBovA may mean either, ‘ Lord of the dwelling,” 
z.e. of the heavenly habitation, or, “ Lord of dung,” z.e. of idolatrous 
abomination. “Lord of idols,” “ Prince of false gods,” comes close 
to “Prince of the demons.” JD.4.? art. “Beelzebub.” It is un- 
certain whether the Jews identified Beelzebub with Satan, or 
believed him to be a subordinate evil power. Unless xiii. 32 refers 
to later instances, Lk. mentions no more instances of the casting 
out of demons after this charge of casting them out by diabolical 
assistance, 

16. metpdfovres. The demand for a mere wonder to compel 
conviction was a renewal of the third temptation (iv. 9-12). Comp. 
Jn. it 18, vi. 50. 

17. Ta Siavorjpata. “ Thoughts,” not “ machinations,” a mean- 
ing which the word nowhere has. Here only in N.T., but freq. 
in LXX and classical: Prov. xiv. 14, xv. 24; Is. lv. 9; Ezek. xiv 
3, 4; Plat. Prot. 348 D; Sym. 210 D. 

otkos émi otkov. Mt. xii. 25 and Mk. iii. 25 do not prove that 


302 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XxI. 17-20. 


diapeptobeis is here to be’understood. In that case we should 
expect éf éaurév or xa’ éavrod rather than ézi oixov. Comp. 
mimrew emt Tl, Vill. 6, xiii. 4, xx. 18, xxiii. 30. It is better, with 
Vulg. (domus supra domum cadet) and Luth. (em Haus fallet tiber 
das andere), to keep closely to the Greek without reference to Mt. 
xi. 25 or Mk. iii. 25. We must therefore regard the clause as an 
enlargement of épyotrar: “house falleth on house”; or possibly 
“house after house falleth.” Comp. vats te vi mpooémumre 
(Thuc. ii. 84. 3). Wetst. quotes wipyou S& ripyos evérurrov 
(Aristid. Rhodiac. p. 544). In this way Lk. gives one example, a 
divided 2ingdom ; Mk. two, &ingdom and house ; Mt. three, £imgdom, 
city, and house, 


In class. Grk. éml after verbs of falling, adding, and the like is commonly 
followed by the dat. In bibl. Greek the acc. is more common: Avrny éml 
Avrnv (Phil. ii. 27); AlOos éml AiPov (Mt. xxiv. 2); dvoulay éml rhv dvoulav 
(Ps. Ixviii. 28); dyyeAla éml dyyeNlav (Ezek. vii. 26). In Is. xxvili. 10 we 
have both acc. and dat., OAlyuv él Oliv, Edrlda én’ edrlde. 


18, ci 8é kai 6 Zatavds. Satan also is under the dominion of 
the same law, that division leads to destruction. The fondness 
of Lk. for 5¢ cai is again manifest: see on ili. 9. Contrast «i 
kai in ver. 8. Here xai belongs to 6 Zar. and means “also.” 
Burton, § 282. Mt. and Mk. here have simply xai i. 

ott héyere. Elliptical: “Z use this language, because ye say,” 
etc. Comp. Mk. iil. 30, and see on vii. 47. 

19. An argumentum ad hominem. 

oi viol Guay. First with emphasis. See Acts xix. 13 and Jos. 
Ant. vill. 2. 5 for instances of Jewish exorcisms ; and comp. Azz. 
vi. 8.2; B. J. vii. 6. 3; Tobit viii. 1-3; Justin M. Z7y. Ixxxv. ; 
Apol. li. 6; 1 Sam. xvi. 14, 23. 

20. <i Sé év SaxtUAw Ceod.! As distinct from the charms and 
incantations used by Jewish exorcists, who did not rely simply 
upon the power of God. Mt. has év zvevpatt @eod. Lk. seems 
to be fond of Hebraistic anthropomorphisms: i. 51, 66, 73. But 
it is not likely that “the fimger of God” indicates the ease with 
which it is done. Comp. Exod. viii. 19, xxxi. 18; Deut. ix. 10; 
Ps. viii. 4. 


épOacev ep tpas. In late Greek, PAdvw followed by a preposition 
commonly loses all notion of priority or surprise, and simply means “‘ arrive 
at, attain to”: Rom. ix. 31; Phil. iii. 16; 2 Cor. x. 14; 1 Thes. ii. 163 
Dan. iv. 19. In 1 Thes. iv. 15 it is not followed by a preposition, and that 
is perhaps the only passage in N.T. in which the notion of anticipating 
survives. Here Vulg. and many Lat. texts have prevenzt, while a, has 
antictpavit ; but many others have fervenzt, and d has adpropingquavit. 


1 The éy after el 5€ (D) or after Geod (BC LR) is of doubtful authority: 
in the one case it probably comes from ver. 19, in the other it may come fiom 
Mt. xii. 28. 


XI. 21-23.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 303 


21. Stav & icxupds KaQwmdtopévos. Here Lk. is very different 
from Mt. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27, while they resemble one another. 
“The strong one” is Satan, and the parable is very like Is. xlix. 
24-26, which may be the source of it. Luther is certainly wrong 
in translating, Wenn ein starker Gewapneter: xabwrhiopévos is an 
epithet of 6 ioxvpds. Coverdale is similar: “a stronge harnessed 
man.” RV. restores the much ignored article: “¢e strong man 
fully armed.” 

Thy éautod addnv. “His own homestead.” Mt. and Mk. have 
oixtav. Comp. Mt. xxvi. 3, 58; Mk. xiv. 54, xv. 16; Jn. xviii. 15. 
Meyer contends that in all these places avAy retains its meaning 
of “court, courtyard,” as in Mt. xxvi. 69; Mk. xiv. 66; Lk. 
xxii. 55. But there is no hint here that “our Lord encountered 
Satan in the aiAy of the High Priest.” For 7a émdpxovta see on 
Vili. 3: substantia ejus (d), facultates ejus (agC), ea que possidet 
(Vulg.). Mt. and Mk. have ra oxevy. 


22. érav 5é. Note the change from &rap with pres, subj. to érd» with 
aor. sub., and comp. xpi) dé, Srav pév TiOjoAe Tovds véuous . . » ode, 
érevdav dé Ona0e, puddtrew (Dem. p 525, 11); ‘‘ whenever you are enact- 
ing... after you have enacted.” So here: ‘‘ Al] the while that the 
strong man is on guard . . . but after a stronger has come.” In ver. 34 
both 8ray and érdy have pres. subj.; in Mt. ii. 8 éwdy has aor. subj.; and 
émdv occurs nowhere else in N.T. 


icxupétepos abrod émehOdy. This is Christ: daexdvodpuevos ras 
dpxas kal Tas eovaolus edevyndricey ev wappycia. OprapBeicas airovs 
(Col. ii. 15). For érépxouar in a hostile sense comp. 1 Sam. 
xxx. 23; Hom. //. xii. 136, xx. 91. See on i. 35. Here Mt. 
and Mk. have «iocAOuv. 

Thy TovoThiav atrod atper eh’ x émemot0e. Because it had been 
so efficacious. Comp. Eph. vi. 11. 

7a ok0Aa adtod. Bengel explains, gvz Satanas generi humano 
eripuerat, identifying 74 oxdAa with 74 irdpxovra (ver. 21: comp. 
Esth. iii. 13). But 7&4 oxdAa may be identified with ryv mwavorXiar. 
In either case Christ makes the powers of hell work together for the 
good of the faithful. Some who identify ra oxtAa with 7a tardpyovra 
interpret both of the souls which Satan has taken captive, and 
especially of demoniacs. Comp. rév ioxupSv pepret oxida (Is. lili. 12). 

23. 6 ph dv pet épot Kat épot éotiv. Verbatim as Mt. xii. 30. 
The connexion with what precedes seems to be that the contest 
between Christ and Satan is such that no one can be neutral. 
But that the warning is specially addressed to those who accused 
Him of having Beelzebub as an ally (ver. 15), or who demanded 
a sign (ver. 16), is less evident. See on ix. 50. 

ouvdywv. Comp. iii. 17, xii. 17, 18. But the metaphor is 
perhaps not from gathering seed and fruit, but from collecting a 
flock of sheep, or a band of followers. Comp. owdye ods 


304. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI. 23-25. 


éoxopmiopévous (Artem. Oxeir. i. 56. 1). Hillel had said, ‘“‘ Whoso 
revileth the Name, his name perisheth; and whoso doth not in- 
crease it, diminisheth,” 


oxoptife, onic and Hellenistic for the more classical oxeddvyupu 3 
comp. Jn. x. 12, xvi. 32; I Mac. vi. 54; 2 Sam, xxii. 15. 


24-26. Almost verbatim as Mt. xii. 43-45, where see Alford. It 
is not likely that there is any reference to the success of the Jewish 
exorcists, as being only temporary, and leading to an aggravation 
of the evil. The disastrous conclusion is the result, not of the 
imperfect methods of the exorcist, but of the misconduct of the 
exorcized. The case of a demoniac who is cured and then allows 
himself to become repossessed is made a parable to illustrate the 
case of a sinner who repents of his sins, but makes no effort to 
acquire holiness. Such an one proves the impossibility of being 
neutral. He flees from Satan without seeking Christ, and thus 
falls more hopelessly into the power of Satan again. 

24, tod dvOpdmov. “The man” who had been afflicted by it. 

80 dvd8pwv téTwv. “Through wareriess places” (Tyn. RV.). 
The wilderness is the reputed house of evil spirits; Tobit vili. 3, 
where Vulg. has Angelus apprehendit demonium, et religavit tllud 
in deserto superioris Aegypti. Comp. Bar. iv. 35; Lev. xvi. 10; Is. 
Xiil. 21; Rev. xvill. 2.! 

dvdmavow. Cessation” from wandering (Gen. vili. 9): the 
demon seeks a soul to rest in. In LXX dvdravots is common of 
the sabbath-rest: Exod. xvi. 23, xxill. 12; Lev. xxili. 3, etc. The 
punctuation is here uncertain. We may put no comma after ava- 
mavow and make pi) etpioxoy co-ordinate with {yrotv: “seeking rest 
and finding none.” This necessitates a full stop at etpicxov and 
the admission of rére before A¢ye. as genuine. But rére (8° BL 2) 
is probably an insertion from Mt. xii. 44 (om. AC D R, Vulg. Aeth. 
Arm.) ; and, if it be omitted, we must place a comma after ava- 
mavow and take ju7) ebpioxov with A€ye. This is to be preferred. 

pi) ciptoxor [téte] héyet. ‘‘ Because he doth not find it [then] he 
saith.” 

eis Tov otkov pou d0ev eéAOov. He still calls it “my house.” No 
one else has taken it, and he was not driven out of it; he “ went 
out.” No mention is made of exorcism or expulsion. 

25. [cxoddfovra]. This also may be an insertion fr. Mt. but 
the evidence is stronger than for tére (SS BCL RI, Aeth. flr). 
Tisch. omits; WH. bracket the word. If it is genuine, it 1s 
placed first as the main evil. It is “standing idle,” not occupied 


1 See Gregory Nazianzen’s interpretation of ‘‘ waterless places” as the un- 
baptized ; “‘dry of the divine stream” (Oration on Holy Baptism, xxxv. ; Post- 
Nicene Library, vii. p. 373). For the application of the parallel to the Jews, 
the Christian Church, and individuals, see Alford on Mt. xii. 44. : 


XI. 25-27.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 305 


by any new tenant. The Holy Spirit has not been made a guest 
in place of the evil spirit. 

cecapwpevoy kal Kexoopnpevoy. Ready to attract any passer-by, 
however undesirable. The three participles form a climax, and 
perhaps refer to the physical and mental improvement in the man. 
There is much for the demon to ruin once more, but there is no 
protection against his return. He brings companions to share the 
enjoyment of this new work of destruction, and to make it complete 
and final. 


The verb capbw (cdpov=“‘a broom”) is a later form of calpw, and occurs 
again xv. 8. For xexoounuévov comp. Rev. xxi. 2. 


26. wapohapBdver. Comp. ix. 10, 28, xviii. 31; Acts xv. 39. 
Here again we have a climax. He brings additional spirits, more 
evil than himself, seven in number. Comp. the seven that went 
out from Mary of Magdala (viii. 2). Here in the best texts érra 
comes last, in Mt. first. In either case the word is emphatic. 
See Paschasius Radbertus on Mt. xii. 43, Migne, cxx. 478. 

eiveMMdvta katouet. ‘There is nothing to oppose them; “they 
enter in and settle there,” taking up a permanent abode: xiil. 43 
Acts i. 19, 20, il. 9, 14, iv. 16, etc. The verb is freq. in bibl. Grk., 
esp. in Acts and Apocalypse. In the Catholic and Pauline Epp. it 
is used of the Divine indwelling (Jas. iv. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 13; Eph. iii 
17; Col. 1. 19, ii. 9). Contrast maporxety of a temporary sojourn 
(xxiv. 18; Heb. xi. a; Gen. xxi. 23). In Gen. xxxvii. 1 both verbs 
occur. 

Xelpova tov mpdtwv. The expression is proverbial ; Mt. xxvii. 64. 
Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 20; Heb. x. 29; Jn. v.14. Lk. omits the words 
which show the primary application of the parable: Otrws éorat kat 
TH yeved tatty 7H tovnpa. The worship of idols had been exorcized, 
but that demon had returned as the worship of the letter, and with 
it the demons of covetousness, hypocrisy, spiritual pride, uncharit- 
ableness, faithlessness, formalism, and fanaticism. 

27, 28. These two verses are peculiar to Lk., and illustrate his 
Gospel in its special character as the Gospel of Women. Christ’s 
Mother is once more declared by a woman to be blessed (i. 42), 
and Mary’s prophecy about herself begins to be fulfilled (i. a 
The originality of Christ’s reply guarantees its historical character. 
Such a comment is beyond the reach of an inventor. 

27. taita. Apparently this refers to the parable about the 
demons. Perhaps the woman, who doubtless was a mother, had 
had experience of a lapsed penitent in her own family. Bene senttt, 
sed muliebriter loguitur (Beng.). For a collection of similar sayings 
see Wetst. 

émdpaca dwvyv. The expression is classical (Dem. De Cor. § 369, p. 
323: comp. vocem tollit, Hor. A. P. 93); in N.T. it is peculiar to Lk. (Acts 
20 


306 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TOU S. LUKE [x1. 27-29. 


ii. 14, xiv. 11, mdi. 22). But it is not rare in LXX (Judg. ii. 4, ix. 7; Ruth 
i. 9, 14; 2 Sam. xiii, 36). 


Makapta 7 Kowhia, Mt. xii. 46 tells us that it was at this moment 
that His Mother and His brethren were announced. The sight of 
them may have suggested this woman’s exclamation. Lk. records 
their arrival earlier (viii. 19-21), but he gives no connecting link. 
Edersheim quotes a Rabbinical passage, in which Israel is repre- 
sented as breaking forth into these words on beholding the Messiah : 
“ Blessed the hour in which the Messiah was created ; blessed the 
womb whence He issued ; blessed the generation that sees Him ; 
blessed the eye that is worthy to behold Him” (Z. & 7. ii. p. 
201). For cxotAéa = “womb” comp. i. 15, 41, 42, 44, ll. 21, Xxiil. 
29; Acts ili. 2, xiv. 8. 

28. Mevoiv. This compound particle sometimes confirms what 
is stated, “yea, verily” ; sometimes adds to what is said, with or 
without confirming it, but virtually correcting it: “yea rather,” 
“that may be true, but.” Here Jesus does not deny the woman’s 
statement, but He points out how inadequate it is. She has missed 
the main point. To be the Mother of Jesus implies no more than a 
share in His humanity. To hear and keep the word of God implies 
communion with what is Divine. The saying is similar to vill. 21. 
The relationship with Christ which brings blessedness is the spiritual 
one. For tév Adyov tod Ocod see on Vill. II. 


Here and Phil. iii. 8 some authorities have pevodvye (Rom. ix. 20, x. 18); 
but in N.T. ev ody is more common (Acts i. 18, v. 41, xiil. 4, XVii. 30, xxili. 
22, xxvi. 9). In class Grk. neither form ever comes first in a sentence. Of 
the Lat. text Wordsworth says, Codces hic tantum variant quantum vix alibe 
in evangelits in uno saltem vocabulo (Vulg. p. 388). Among the renderings 
are quippe enim, quippini, guinimmo, immo, manifestissime, etiam. Many 
omit the wor 


kal duddcoovtes. Comp. Jas. i. 22-25. S. James may have 
been present and heard this reply. He also says paxdpuos is the 
man who hears and does tov Adyor. 

29-36. The Rebuke to those who Demanded a Sign (ver. 16). 
A longer account of the first half of the rebuke is given Mt. xii. 
39-42. 

29. Tav 8 Sxdwv erraporLopévwv. Lk. once more notes how the 
rultitude was attracted by Christ’s words and works: comp. ver. 
27, lv. 42, V. I, Vi. 17, Vil. II, Vill. 4 19, 40, 1%. 11, 37, K0emuegee 
XIV. 25, XV. I, xVili. 36, xix. 37, 48. The verb is a rare compound ; 
here only in bibl. Grk. For fpgato A€yew see on iv. 21 and iii. 8. 
To wovnpa Mt. adds xat porxaris. 

ei 7) TO onpetoy “lava. At first sight Lk. appears to make the 
parallel between Jonah and Christ to consist solely in their preach- 
ing repentance. He omits the explanation that Jonah was a type 
of the burial and resurrection of Christ. But do6jcerar and éorat 
show that this explanation is implied. Christ had for long been 


XI. 29-32.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 307 


preaching ; yet He says, not that sign has been given or is being 
given, but that it sza// be given. The infallible sign is still in the 
future, viz. His resurrection. Nevertheless, even that ought not 
to be necessary ; for His teaching ought to have sufficed. Note 
the emphatic repetition of oypetov thrice in one verse.? 

Some have interpreted onpetoy ov dofjoerar as meaning, either 
that Jesus wrought no miracles, or that He refused to use them as 
credentials of His Divine mission. It is sufficient to point to ver. 
20, where Jesus appeals to His healing of a dumb and blind de- 
moniac as proof that He is bringing the kingdom of God to them. 
The demand for a sign and the refusal to give it are no evidence as 
to Christ’s working miracles and employing them as credentials. 
What was demanded was something quite different from wonders 
such as Prophets and (as the Jews believed) magicians had wrought. 
These scribes and Pharisees wanted direct testimony from God 
Himself respecting Jesus and His mission, such as a voice from 
heaven or a pillar of fire. His miracles left them still able to doubt, 
and they ask to be miraculously convinced. This He refuses. See 
Neander, Z. /. C. § 92, Eng. tr. p. 144. 

81. Baci\tcoa votov. Lk. inserts this illustration between the 
two sayings about Jonah. Mt. keeps the two sayings about Jonah 
together. Lk. places the Ninevites after the Queen of Sheba either 
for chronology, or for effect, or both: their case was the stronger of 
the two. There is a threefold contrast in this illustration: (1) be- 
tween a heathen queen and the Jews; (2) between the ends of the 
earth and here; (3) between Solomon and the Son of Man. There 
may possibly be a fourth contrast between that enterprising woman 
and the men of this generation implied in tév avipav, which is not 
in Mt. 

voTou . . . €k TOv Tepdtwy THS yis- Sheba was in the southern 
part of Arabia, the modern Yemen, near the southern limits of the 
world as then known. Comp. Ps. ii. 8. 

thetov Zohouavos. There is no need to understand oypeiov: “a 
greater thing, something greater, than Solomon.” 

82. dvBpes Nuvevetrar. No article: “Men of Nineveh.” RV. 
retains “‘ Ze men of Nineveh.” 

eis TO Kypuypa. “Jn accordance with the preaching” they re- 
pented; ze. they turned towards it and conformed to it; comp. 
eCwypnuevor tx adrod eis 76 éxetvov OéAnua (2 Tim. ii. 26); or else, 
“out of regard t it” they repented; comp. otrwes éAdBere tov 


1 Sanday inclines to the view that Mt. xii. 40 ‘‘is a gloss which formed no 
eae of the original saying, but was introduced, very naturally though erroneously, 
y the author of our present Gospel” (Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 433). On 
the question whether Christ’s appeal to Jonah requires us to believe that the 
story of the whale is historical see Sanilay’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 414-4193 
Gore’s Bampton Lectures, 1891, pp. 195-200; with the literature there quoted, 


308 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 82-35, 


vouov els Siarayas ayyéAwy (Acts vii. 53); 6 Sexdmevos Sik uov eis 
6voya. Sixaiov (Mt. x. 41). See on x. 13; and for kypvypa, as 
meaning the subject rather than the manner of preaching, see Lft. 
Votes on Epp. p. 161. 

33-36. The Light of the inner Eye. There is no break in the 
discourse, and this should hardly be printed as a separate section: 
the connexion with what goes before is close. Christ is still con- 
tinuing His reply to those who had demanded a sign. Those 
whose spiritual sight has not been darkened by indifference and 
impenitence have no need of a sign from heaven. Their whole 
soul is full of the light which is all around them, ready to be re- 
cognized and absorbed. ‘This saying appears to have been part of 
Christ’s habitual teaching. Lk. gives it in a rather different form 
after the parable of the Sower (viii. 16-18). Mt. has it as part of 
the Sermon on the Mount (v. 15, vi. 21, 22), but does not repeat 
it here. Mk. has a portion of it after the parable of the Sower 
(iv. 21). See S. Cox in the ZxZositor, 2nd series, i. p. 252. 

833. Adxvov &pas. See on vill. 16.—eis kpimmv. “Into a vault, 
crypt, cellar.” But no ancient Version seems to give this render- 
ing, although Euthym. has ri déxpudov oikiav. Win. xxxiv. 3. 
b, p. 298. For the word comp. Jos. &. /. v. 7. 4; Athen. v. (iv.) 
205 A; and the Lat. crxypta; Suet. Cad. lvili.; Juv. v. 106. 

id tov podiov. ‘Under ¢ke bushel,” ze. the one in the room, 
or in the house; as we say “‘¢he sofa, the shovel.” In capacity a 
modius is about a peck=16 sextarit or } pedysvos (comp. Nep. 
Aft. ii.): elsewhere only Mt. v. 15; Mk. iv. 21. 

84. 6 Adxvos Tod capatos. ‘The /amp of the body.” To trans- 
late Avxvos “candle” in ver. 33 and “light” in ver. 34 (Tyn. Cov. 
Cran. Gen. AV.) is disastrous. Vulg. has /ucerna in both; Wic. 
has “lanterne” in both, and Rhem. “candel” in both; RV. still 
better, “lamp” in both. 


érav . . . émav. See on ver. 22. Here both are followed by the pres. 
subj., and there is no appreciable difference. 


Gm\ots. “Free from distortion, normal, sound.”—ovnpds. 
“Diseased”: zovnpia 6¢6aApav occurs Plat. Hip. min. 374 D. 
Comp. movnpa eis cwpatos (Plat. Zim. 86 D) and the common 
phrase zovypds éxye. Faith, when diseased, becomes the darkness 
of superstition ; just as the eye, when diseased, distorts and ob- 
scures. Comp. Mt. vi. 22, 23. 

35. ondmet odv. Here, and not in the middle of ver. 34, the 
meaning passes from the eye of the body to the eye of the soul.! 

pi) TO pas TO ev col oxdtos éotiv. This happens when the eye 
of the soul is so diseased that it cannot receive any ray of Divine 


1 Comp. Seneca, Zffugisse tenebras, bono lucis fru, non tenut visu clara 
prospicere, sed totum diem admitter. 


XI. 35-89.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 309 


truth. The py is interrogative, and the indicative after it suggests 
that the case contemplated is an actual fact: “look whether it be 
not darkness” ; considera num, schaue ob wohl nicht. The vide ne 
of Vulg. is not exact. Comp. Gal. iv. 11; Thuc. iii 53. 2, Win. 
lvi. 2. a, p. 631; Simcox, Zang. of V.T. p. 109. 

86. The tautology is only apparent. In the protasis the em- 
phasis is on ddor, which is further explained by ui Exov pépos Tt oxo- 
zwov: in the apodosis the emphasis is on éwtwév, which is further 
explained by as 6rav 6 Avxvos, x.7.X. “If thy whole body... it 
shall be wholly fué/ of light.” Complete illumination is illumina- 
tion indeed, and those who possess it have no need of a sign from 
heaven in order to recognize the truth. 

37-54. § The Invitation from a Pharisee. Christ’s Denuncia- 
tion of Pharisaic Formalism and Hypocrisy. A similar condemna- 
tion of the Pharisees is placed by Mt. somewhat later, and is given 
with great fulness (xxiii.). If these sayings were uttered only once, 
we have not much material for determining which arrangement is 
more in accordance with fact. See on ver. 54. 

37. "Ev 3¢€ 7@ Aadfjoa. “Now after He had spoken” (aor.), 
rather than “ As He spake” (AV. RV.). See on iii. 21. There 
is nothing to show that the invitation was the result of what Christ 
had just been saying. Indeed, there may have been a consider- 
able interval between vz. 36 and 37. 

Smws dptomon. Here, as in Jn. xxi. 12, 15, the early meal of 
breakfast or lunch is meant rather than dinner or supper: comp. 
xiv. 12; Mt. xxii. 4. At this time the first meal of all was called 
axpaticpa. Bekker, Charicles, vi. excurs. i., Eng. tr. p. 240. 

88. eOadpacev. We are not told that he expressed his surprise. 
Jesus read his thoughts and answered them. Jesus had just come 
from contact with the multitude, and, moreover, He had been 
casting out a demon; and the Pharisee took for granted that He 
would purify Himself from any possible pollution before coming 
to table. This was not enjoined by the Law but by tradition, 
which the Pharisees tried to make binding upon all (Mk. vii. 3). 
This man’s wonder is evidence that his invitation was not a plot to 
obtain evidence against Jesus: he was not expecting any trans- 
gression. 

éBartic®). This need not be taken literally of bathing. Prob- 
ably no more than washing the hands is meant; and this often 
took place at table, the servants bringing water to each person. 
Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. pp. 204-207. We may understand Christ’s 
omission to wash before coming to table, or refusal of the water 
offered to Him at table, as a protest against the attempt to “bind 
burdens” upon men, and to substitute trivialities for the weightier 
matters of the Law. Comp. Derenbourg, His¢. de. la Pal. p. 134. 

39. eimev S€ 6 Képios. The use of 6 Kuipios here (see on v. 17 


310 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (XI. 39-41. 


and vii. 13) perhaps has special point. The Pharisee might regard 
Him as an ordinary guest; but He has a message to deliver to 
him. 

Nov. The meaning is not certain; but it probably refers to 
time, and is not merely concessive. “It was not so formerly, but 
this is the fact now.” Comp. 2 Cor. vil. 9 and Col. i. 24, where 
see Lft. Or, ‘Here we have a case in point.” Comp. 2 Kings 
vii. 6. Or, “ This is what you as a matter of fact do,” in contrast 
to what you ought to do—zAny 7a évovta Odre. With the whole 
saying comp. Mt xxiii. 25. For mivaxos Mt. has zapoyidos: comp. 
Mk. vi. 25; Mt. xiv. 8. 

76 Sé EowSev budv. Here the outside of the cup and platter is 
contrasted with the hearts of the Pharisees. In Mt. the point is 
that the outside of the vessels is kept clean, while the meat and 
drink in them are the proceeds of rapacity and the means of 
excess (dkpacias). Comp. év moxiAia ayaptidv kat axpacias (Ps. 
Sol. iv. 3): amantes convivia devoratoresgule (Assump. Moys. 
vii. 4). Here some make 76 éowfev mean the inside of the vessels, 
and take ipdv with dprayjjs x. rovnpias. But the position of tydv 
is conclusive against this. Others make 76 écwfev tjydv mean 
“‘your inward parts” in the literal sense. “You can keep the 
vessels from polluting the food; but that will not prevent the food, 
which is already polluted by the way in which it was obtained, 
from filling you with uncleanness.” But this is not probable. 
For Jewish trifling about clean and unclean vessels see Schoettg. 
and Wetst. on Mt. xxiii. 25, 26; and for the moral sterility of such 
teaching, Pressensé, Le Svécle Apostolique, p. 90. 

40. ddpoves. A strong word: quite classical, but in N.T. 
almost confined to Lk (xii. 20) and Paul (Rom. ii. 20; 1 Cor. 
XV. 353 2 Cor. xi. 16, 19, xii. 6, 11; Eph. v. 17. See on xxiv. 25). 

ouK 6 Toincas TO efwbev. This is almost certainly a question. 
“Not he who has done the outside has thereby done the inside,” 
makes sense, but it is harsh and hardly adequate. It is better with 
most Versions to make otk=zonne. “Did not God, who made 
the material universe, make men’s souls also?”! It is folly to be 
scrupulous about keeping material objects clean, while the soul is 
polluted with wickedness.? 

41, zhiv Ta Evovta Sdte EXenpoodvynv. The why is here expans- 


1 We may get the same sense from the text of C DI and some cursives, 
which transpose éw6ev and éow6ev. So also from some Latin texts: nonne qué 
fecit interiora et exteriora fecit (a), quz fecet quod intus est et quod forss est (ce). 

Ergo miser trepidas, ne stercore feda canino 

Atria displiceant oculss venientis amici, 

Ne perfusa luto sit portecus : et tamen uno 

Semodio scobis hxe emundat servulus unus. 

Tilud non agitas, ut sanctam filius omni 

Adspiciat sine labe domum vitioqgue carentem (Juv. xiv. 64). 


XI. 41-43.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 311 


ive and progressive, “only.” See on vi. 24. The meaning of 
7a €vovra is much disputed, and the renderings vary greatly: guz 
sunt (bd g); ex his qux habetis (f); quod superest (Vulg.); ea que 
penes vos sunt (Beza) ; guantum potestis (Grot.) ; von dem, das da ist 
(Luth.). Quod superest is impossible ; and the others are not very 
probable. Nor is it satisfactory to follow Erasmus, Schleiermacher, 
and others, and make the saying ironical : ‘‘ Give something to the 
poor out of your luxuries, and then (as you fancy) all your dpray7j 
and zovypia will be condoned.” According to this ra évovra means 
either what is in the cups and platters, or what is in your purses. 
And this is perhaps right, but without irony. ‘The contents of 
your cup and platter give ye in alms, and, lo, all things are clean 
to you,” #.e. benevolence is a better way of keeping meals free 
from defilement than scrupulous cleansing of vessels. We are 
told that this is “‘a peculiarly Ebionitic touch.” But it is very good 
Christianity. Others make 74 é&vovra = 7d écwSev: “ As for that 
which is within you, as for the care of your souls, give alms.” See 
Expositor, 2nd series, v. p. 318. Or, “Give your souls as alms,” 
#.¢. give not merely food or money, but your heart. Comp. dds 
mewv@vtt Tov aprov ék Wuy7s cov (Is. lviii. 10). In any case, ravra 
refers specially to the vessels used at meals. Zzey will not defile 
where benevolence prevails. With the passage as a whole comp. 
Mk. vii. 18, 19 and the Baptist’s commands (LK. iii. 11). 

42. ada odai Sutv. “ But, far from acting thus and obtaining 
this blessing, a curse is upon you.” Rue is mentioned in the 
Talmud as a herb for which no tithe need be paid. 

mapépxeoe. “Ye pass by, neglect”: comp. xv. 29; Deut. 
xvii. 2; Jer. xxxiv. 18; Judith xi. 10; 1 Mac. il. 22. Elsewhere 
in N.T. it means “pass by” literally (xviii. 37; Acts xvi. 8), or 
“‘pass away, perish” (xvi. 17, xxi. 32, 33, etc.). Here Mt. has 
adiKere, 

thy kpiow. “The distinction between right and wrong, recti- 
tude, justice.” This use of xpiots is Hebraistic; comp. Gen. 
XVili. 19, 25 ; Is. v. 7, lvi. 1, lix. 8; Jer. xvii. 11 ; 1 Mac. vii. 18. 

Thy G&ydany tod Geod. Here only does Lk. use the word dydzn, 
which occurs once in Mt. (xxiv. 12), and not at allin Mk. It is 
fairly common in LXX, esp. in Cant. (ii. 4, 5, 7, etc.). 

kdketva pi) wapetvat. Their carefulness about trifles is not con- 
demned, but sanctioned. It is the neglect of essentials which is 
denounced as fatal. It is not correct to say that Christ abolished 
the ceremonial part of the Law while retaining the moral part: see 
Hort, /udaistic Christianity, pp. 30, 31. 

43. dyanGte thy tpwroKabedpiav. “Ye highly value (Jn. xii. 43) 
the first seat.” This was a semicircular bench round the ark, and 
facing the congregation. Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. p. 436. Comp. 
xx. 46; Mt. xxii. 6; Mk. xii. 39. 


312 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 43-47. 


Some Latin texts agree with C D in adding to this verse et przmos discubi- 
tos in convivits (bl qr), or et prémos adcubitos zn cenzs (d). 

44, éoté Ss TO pvynpeta Ta Gdyda. “Whosoever in the open 
field toucheth a grave shall be unclean seven days” (Num. xix. 16). 
Hence the Jews were accustomed to whitewash such graves to 
make them conspicuous. People mixed freely with Pharisees, 
believing them to be good men, and unconsciously became infected 
with their vices, just as they sometimes walked over a hidden grave 
and were polluted without knowing it. In Mt. xxiii. 27 the 
Pharisees are compared to the whitewashed graves, which look 
clean and are inwardly foul. 

45. tdv vopxdv. See on vii. 30. Not all the Pharisees were 
professional students (voyuKo/), or teachers of the Law (vopodidae- 
kaAot). 

kal jas bBpifers. “Thou insultest even us,” the better in- 
structed among the Pharisees. ‘The verb implies outrageous treat- 
ment (xviii. 32; Acts xiv. 5; Mt. xxii. 6; 1 Thes. ii. 2), and 
“reproachest” is hardly strong enough. Comp. évuBpilew (Heb. 
x. 29). In class. Gk. i@piZew is commonly followed by eis, esp. in 
prose. ‘ Reproach” would be évediZew (Mt. xi. 20). 

46. There is a triplet of Woes against the lawyers (vv. 46, 47, 
52), as against the Pharisees (42, 43, 44). With this first Woe 
comp. Mt. xxii. 4. In both passages goprioy occurs ; and, as dis- 
tinct from Bapos and dyxos, it means that which a man is expected 
to bear (Mt. xi. 30). But Lk. shows his fondness for cognate 
words by writing foprilere Pdptia, while Mt. has deopevovow 
gopria. See on xxiii. 46. 

SucBdotaxta. Prov. xxvii. 3. The word probably occurs here 
only in N.T., and has been inserted Mt. xxiii. 4 from here. The 
reference is to the intolerably burdensome interpretations by which 
the scribes augmented the written Law. They made it far more 
severe than it was intended to be, explaining every doubtful point 
in favour of rigorous ritualism. 

od mpoowavete. Touching with a view to removing seems to be 
meant ; but it may indicate that, while they were rigorous to others, 
they were evasive themselves. They were scrupulous about their 
own traditions, but they did not keep the Law. It is not admis- 
sible, however, to interpret tots gopriots in a different way from 
doptia dvaBdaoraxra, making the latter refer to traditions, and rtois 
dopriots to the Law. Both mean the same, the force of the article 
being “the opria just mentioned.” Seeing that the vop.Kxot were 
not neglectful of traditions, rots doprious must mean the Law; and 
therefore ¢opria Sve Bdcraxra must have this meaning. 

47. Comp. Mt. xxiii. 30; Acts. vil. 52. 

OikOSopEtTE TA ypELA TOV TpopyTav ot Sé warépes Spdv. “ Ve 


build the tombs of the prophets, w/z/e your fathers.” The “Tombs 


XI. 47-49.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 313 


of the Prophets,” near the top of the Mount of Olives, are still “an 
enigma to travellers and antiquarians.” All that can safely be 
asserted is that they are not the “ tombs of the prophets” mentioned 
here. Robinson, Res. im fal. iil. p. 254. 

48, pdptupés éote kal cuveuSoxeite. “‘ Ye are witnesses and con- 
sent to”; or, ‘ Ye bear favourable witnesses to and approve”: not, 
“Ve bear witness ‘Aa¢ ye approve.” Mt. has papzupetre only 
(xxiii. 31), which some texts introduce here (AC D). Comp. Saul, 
who was ovvevooxay to the murder of Stephen (Acts viii. 1). The 
dpa. as first word is not classical: comp. Acts xi. 18. 

tv ratépwy Spay. “ Your fathers, morally as well as actually ; 
for you carry on and complete their evil deeds.” Externally the 
Pharisees seemed to honour the Prophets. Really they were dis- 
honouring them as much as those did who slew them; for they 
neglected the duties which the Prophets enjoined, and ignored 
their testimony to Christ. 

49, 81a todro kai. “Because of your complicity with your 
fathers’ murderous deeds, there is this confirmation of the Woe 
just pronounced.” Comp. Mt. xxiii. 34. 

i] copia Tod Ocod eimev “Amooteko. The words which are here 
ascribed to the “ Wisdom of God” are in Mt. xxiii. 34 Christ’s own 
words, spoken on a later occasion. It is improbable that Christ is 
here quoting what He said on some previous occasion. Nowhere 
does He style Himself “the Wisdom of God”; nor does any 
Evangelist give Him this title; nor does @eod codiav or codia az 
@cod (1 Cor. i. 24, 30) warrant us in asserting that this was a 
common designation of Christ among the first Christians, so that 
tradition might have substituted this name for the éyé used by 
Jesus. That He is quoting from a lost book called ‘The Wisdom 
of God” is still less probable.?_ Written words would be intro- 
duced with Aéyec rather than «fev, and the context seems to imply 
some Divine utterance. In the O.T. no such words are found; 
for Prov. i. 20-31 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22, xxxvi. 14-21 are quite 
inadequate. And we obtain nothing tangible when we make the 
passage “a general paraphrase of the fenor of several O.T. pas- 
sages.” Rather it is of the Divine Providence (Prov. viii. 22-31), 
sending Prophets to the Jewish Church and Apostles to the 
Christian Courch, that Jesus here speaks: ‘‘God in His wisdom 
said.” Comp. vil. 35. Jesus here speaks with confident know- 
ledge of the Divine counsels: comp. x. 22, xv. 7, 10. 

1 Vulg. has ¢estificamini quod consentitis, and a few cursives read 671 cuvevio- 
kefre. Lat. texts vary greatly: guéa consentitis (r), et consentitis (CT), con- 
sentitis (E), consentire (cil), consentientes (f), non consentientes (abq), non 
consentire (d) following wh cuvevioxety (D). 

2 See Ryle, Canon of O.T. p. 155; and for apparent quotations from 
ere which cannot be found in Scripture comp. Jn. vii. 38; 1 Cor. ii. 9; 

ph. v. 14. 


314 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XIL 49-52, 


Gmootédous. Mt. has codots kat ypaypareis, and mentions 
crucifixion and scourging along with death and persecution. By 
coupling the persecuted Apostles with the persecuted Prophets, 
Jesus once more indicates the solidarity of the Pharisees with their 
wicked forefathers: comp. Mt. v.12. For é& att@v (rwas) comp. 
Jn. xvi. 17; 2 Jn. 4; Rev. ii. 10. For 8idfouow (8 BC LX) in the 
sense of “ persecute” comp. xxi. 12; Acts vii. 52, ix. 4, xxii. 4, 7, 
etc. 

50. tva éx{Zntn9{ 173 ata. This is the Divinely ordered 
sequence. ‘The verb is almost unknown in profane writings ; and 
nowherse else in N.T. is it used of “demanding dack, requiring as 
a debt.” Comp. 2 Sam. iv. 11; Ezek. iii. 18, 20, xxxiii. 6, 8; 
Gen. ix. 5, xlii. 22. 

Td éxkexupevoy Grd KataBohfs Kéopou. Comp. Mt. xxv. 34; 
Heb. iv. 3, ix. 26; Rev. xili. 8, xvii. 8. The expression xaraBoAy 
kdopov does not occur in LXX. Comp. aa’ dpyjs (Ps. Ixxviii. 2). 

éxxexuuévov. This is the reading of B and a few cursives; but almost all 
other authorities have éxxuvyéuevoy, which may easily have come from Mt. 
The grammarians condemn éxxvvw or éxxvvvw (Aeolic) as a collateral form of 
éxxéw. It is used of bloodshed Acts xxii. 20, and the pres. part., if genuine 
here, is very expressive: ‘‘ the blood which is perpetually being shed.” 

dard Tis yeveds TaUTys. To be taken after exfyrn6y. The refer- 
ence is specially to the destruction of Jerusalem (xxi. 32). 

51. The murders of Abel and Zacharias are the first and last 
murders in the O.T., which in the Jewish Canon ends with 
Chronicles. In both cases the éexfyrnots is indicated: “ The voice 
of the brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground” (Gen. 
iv. 10); ‘The Lord look upon it, and require it” (2 Chron. 
xxiv. 22). Chronologically the murder of Uriah by Jehoiakim 
(Jer. xxvi. 23) is later than that of Zachariah the son of Jehoiada. 
Zachariah ¢he son of Barachiah was the Prophet, and there is no 
mention of his having been murdered: in Mt. xxiii. 35 ‘the son 
of Barachiah” is probably a mechanical slip. For tod oixou Mt. 
has rod vaod, and the vads is evidently the otxos meant here. 

vat, Néyw Spiv. Comp. vii. 26, xii. 5. Not elsewhere in N.T. 

52. thy Kdelda THs yvéoews. ‘The key which opens the door 
to knowledge,” not “‘ which is knowledge”: the gen. is not one of 
apposition. There is no reference to a supposed ceremony by 
which a “doctor of the law” was “symbolically admitted to his 
office by the delivery of a key.” No such ceremony appears to 
have existed. The knowledge is that of the way of salvation, which 
can be obtained from Scripture. But the scribes had cut off all 
access to this knowledge, first, by their false interpretations ; and, 
secondly, by their contempt for the people, whom they considered 
to be unworthy of instruction or incapable of enlightenment. 
Their false interpretations were fatal to themselves (atrot ovx 


XI. 52, 53.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 315 


eionAOare) as well as to others. See Hort, /udaistic Christianity, 
p. 141; Recog. Clem. i. 54, li. 30, 46. Excepting in the Apocalypse 
(i. 18, iii, 7, ix. 1, xx. 1), KAe’s occurs only Matt. xvi. 19. The 
reading éxpvware (D and some Versions) for jpare is an interpreta- 
tive gloss. Note that here Lk. has voy.xot where Mt. (xxiii. 14) has 
ypappareis, and comp. xii. 44. 

Tovs eicepxopevous. “Those who were continually trying to 
enter” (imperf. part.). The aorists indicate what was done once 
for all and absolutely. 

53. KdxetOev éfeXOdvtos aitod. In their vehemence they followed 
Him out of the Pharisee’s house. But it by no means follows 
from what they did in their excitement that “the Pharisee’s feast 
had been a base plot to entrap Jesus.” 


The text of this verse exhibits an extraordinary number of variations. 
The above is the reading of NBCL 33, Boh. For it ADX, Latt. Syr- 
Cur. substitute Aéyovros dé airod taira mpds avrovs or mpds Tov adv: and 
to this D X Latt. Syr-Cur. add évwmiov mavrds tod aod or Tov 6x00. For 
ol ypayuarets x. of bap. D and various Lat. texts give ol Pap. x. ol voutxol, 
legis periti (Vulg. cdef). For dewas evéxew C has devas éréxew, H 6. 
ovvéxev, and D § with various Lat. texts 6. éyew: male habere (bd q), male 
se habere (a), graviter habere (cei), graviter ferre (1), and moleste ferre (r), 
representing 6. éyew, while gravzter zusistere (Vulg.) is Jerome’s correction 
to represent 6. évéxew. Again, for dmrocropatlfew atrév D and most Lat. 
texts substitute cuvBdd\d\ew atr@: comminare zlli (a), committere cum illo 
(bilqr), committere tll (d), conferre cum eo (c), conferre illi (e), altercart 
cum illo (f) representing cupBdddew atr@, while os efus opprimere (Vulg.) 
represents émioroulfev. Not one represents dzrooroparl fev. 


évéxew. In Mk. vi. 19 and Gen. xlix. 23 (the only place in 
which the act. occurs in LXX) this verb is followed by a dat. It 
may be doubted whether xédov, which is expressed Hdt. i. 118. 1, 
vi. I19. 2, Vili. 27. 1, is here to be understood. If anything is to 
be understood, rév vodvy is more probable, as in the analogous 
cases of éréyew (which C here reads) and zpocéyew. The mean- 
ing appears to be that they “watched Him intensely, were actively 
on the alert against Him”; which suits Gen. xlix. 23 (éveiyov 
avT@ Kvpior Tofevpatwrv) as well as the context here. But external 
pressure may be the meaning in both places, although in Mk. 
vi. 19 internal feeling suits the context better (“cherished a 
grudge against”). In the gloss of Hesychius, évéyet* pyyotkaxel, 
éykertat (? éykoret), it is possible that pvyoucaxe? refers to Mk. vi. 
19 and éyxevrat (or éyxoret) to Lk. xi. 53. See Field, Otium Norvie. 
ill. pp. 22, 45, and the note in Wordsworth’s Vulgate. 

Grootopatife. Originally, “‘to dictate what is to be learned 
by heart and recited” (Plato, Zuthyd. 276 C, 277 A); hence ra 
drootopatioueva, “the dictated lesson” (Arist. Soph. £7. iv. 1). 
Thence it passed, either to the pupil’s part, mere recitation, as of 
the Sibyl reciting verses (Plut. Zhes xxiv.); or to the teacher’s 


316 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XxI. 58, 54 


part, the plying with questions ‘‘to provoke to answer,” as here. 
See Wetst. ad Joc., and Hatch, 7d. Gre. p. 40. 


54. Confusion in the text still continues; but the true reading is not 
oubtful. WH. give this as a good instance of conflation, the common 
reading being compounded of the original text and two early corruptions of 
it. Comp. ix. 10, xii. 18, xxiv. 53. 

(a) évedpevovres atrdv Onpetoal te éx Tod ctéuaros at’rov. NBL Boh. 
Aeth. Syr-Cur. (some omit avrév). 

‘B) §nrobvtes apopunv Twa AaBety atrod iva etpwow Karnyopjcat avrov. 
D, d Syr-Sin. ? 

(y) &nrodvTes apopujvy Twa AaBety adirod tva Karnyopjowow aitov. Lat. 

et. (some omit adrod). 

(5) evedpevovtes atrév, Snrodvtes Onpedoal te éx Tod oréparos avrov, iva 
Katnyopnowow avrol. ACEGHKMUVIAATIL, and with 
small variations X, all cursives, Vulg. etc. WH. ii. Introduction, 
p- 102, 


évedpevovtes. Elsewhere in N.T. only Acts xxiii. 21: comp. 
Deut. xix. 11; Prov. xxvi. 19; Wis. ii. 12; Ecclus. xxvii. 10, 28; 
Lam. iv. 19; Jos. Amzt. v. 2. 12; in all which places it has, as 
here, the acc. instead of the usual dat. 

Onpedoat.! Here only in N.T. Comp. Ps. lviii. 4. Both this 
word and évedpevovres are very graphic. Godet remarks that we 
have here ume scene de violence peut-étre unique dans la vie de 
Jésus: and huic vehementiz suberat fraudulentia (Beng.). We 
infer from xii. 1 that now the disciples are present. 


It is possible that in Mt. xxiii. what took place on this occasion is com- 
bined with what was said in the temple just before the Passion. Lk. gives 
only a very brief notice of the later denunciation (xx. 45-47 ; comp. Matt. xxiii. 
1-7). But the fact that he gives two denunciations is against the theory that only 
one was uttered, which he assigns to one occasion and Mt. to another. It may, 
however, easily have happened that some of what was said on the first occasion 
has been transferred to the second, or wzce versa. 


XII. The greater part of the utterances of Christ which Lk. 
records in this chapter are also recorded in different parts of Mt., 
for the most part either in the Sermon on the Mount (v.—vii.), or 
in the Charge to the Twelve (x. 5-42), or in the Prophecy of the 
Last Days (xxiv. 4-51). Here they are given in the main as a 
continuous discourse, but with marked breaks at vv. 13, 22, 54. 
Lk. evidently regards vy. 1-21 as spoken immediately after the 
commotion at the Pharisee’s house; and there is little doubt that 
vv. 22-53 are assigned by him to the same occasion. How 
much break there is between vv. 53 and 54 is left undetermined. 
The fact that many of Christ’s sayings were uttered more than 


1 Comp. Elié po, & Zwxpares, ov aloxiver, rnAKodros Gv, dvdpara Onpevwr, 
kal édy tis phate audpry, Epuaov Tairo mrovovuevas ; (Plat. Gore. 489 B), 


XIL.1.]: JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 317 


once, and were differently arranged on different occasions, will 
partly explain the resemblances and differences between Lk. and 
Mt. here and elsewhere. But it is also probable that there has 
been some confusion in the traditions, and that words which one 
tradition placed in one connexion were by another tradition placed 
in another. 


Lk. xii, 92-9 =Mt. x. 26-33. Lk. xii. 51-53 = Mt. x. 34-36. 


22-32= vi. 25-34. 54-50= [xvi 2, 3]. 
25 eS vi. 19-21. 57-59 = v. 25, 26, 
39-46= = xxiv. 43-51. 


1-12. Exhortation to Courageous Sincerity. This is closely 
connected with what precedes. The commotion inside and out- 
side the Pharisee’s house had attracted an immense crowd, which 
was divided in its sympathy, some siding with the Pharisees, 
others disposed to support Christ. His addressing His words to 
His disciples rather than to the multitude indicates that the latter 
were in the main not friendly. But the appeal made to Him by 
one of them (ver. 13) respecting a purely private matter shows that 
His authority is recognized by many. The man would not have 
asked Him to give a decision in the face of a wholly hostile 
assembly. But this warning to His followers of the necessity for 
courageous testimony to the truth in the face of bitter opposition 
implies present hostility. The connexion with the preceding 
scene is proved by the opening words, ’Ev ois, “In the midst of 
which, in the meantime.” 

1. tOv pupiddwv tod dxdov. Hyperbolical, as in Acts xxi. 20, 
The article points to what is usual; “the people in their myriads.” 
Comp. od gdo8yOjcopat dd prpiadwy raod Tov KikXo émBeuevov 
pot (Ps. iii. 7). 

npéato héyeww. The jpéaro gives a solemn emphasis to what 
follows: see on iv. 21, and comp. xiv. 18 and Acts ii. 4. It may 
possibly refer to tpatov ; He began to address the disciples, and 
then turned to the people. The mparovy means that His words 
were addressed primarily to the disciples, although the people 
were meant to hear them. After the interruption He addresses 
the people directly (ver. 15). It makes poor sense to take zp@rov 
with zpocexere, “First of all beware” (Tyn. Cran. Gen.), for to 
beware of Pharisaic hypocrisy cannot be considered the first of 
all duties. For other amphibolous constructions see on ii. 22. 

Npocéxete Eautots dd. “‘ Take heed to yourselves and avoid; 
beware of.” The warning phrase tpooéxere éavtots is peculiar 
to Lk. (xvii. 3, xxi. 34; Acts v. 35, xx. 28); but in LXX zpdcexe 
geavtS is common (Gen. xxiv. 6; Exod. x. 28, xxxiv. 12; Deut. 
iv. 9, etc.). For the reflexive see on xxi. 30. 


318 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 1-4, 


ard THs Cupns. This constr. is common after verbs of avoiding, ceasing 
from, guarding against, and the like; mwatw, xwAvw, guddccomat, K.T.r. 
Comp. mpbcexe ceavtS amd mdons mopveas (Tobit iv. 12). The pronoun is 
often omitted, xx. 46; Mt. vii. 15, x. 17, xvi. 6, 11; Deut. iv. 232 


This warning seems to have been given more than once (Mk. 
viii, 15). Leaven in Scripture is generally a type of ev? which 
corrupts and spreads, disturbing, puffing up and souring that which 
it influences. The parable of the Leaven (xiii. 20, 21; Mt. xiii. 
33) is almost the only exception. Ignatius (A/agnes. x.) uses it in 
both a good and a bad sense. In profane literature its associations 
are commonly bad. The /lamen Dialis was not allowed to touch 
leaven or leaven bread (Aulus Gellius, x. 15): comp. Juv. iii. 188. 
The proverb puxpa Ciun sAov 76 dipapya Cupot, is used of pernicious 
influence (1 Cor. v. 6; Gal. v. 9). Fermentation is corruption. 


If rév Sapicatwy is rightly placed last (B L), it is epexegetic. ‘‘ Beware 
of the leaven which is hypocrisy,—I mean the Pharisees’ leaven.” In Mt. 
xvi. 12 ‘‘ the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” is interpreted as meaning 
their doctrine. 


2. Oude SE cuyKekahuppevoy éorw. “ Burt there is nothing 
covered up, which shall not,” etc. Hypocrisy is useless, for one 
day there will be a merciless exposure. It is not only wicked, but 
senseless. 

8. av® dv. This is commonly rendered “wherefore,” like 
avtt rovrov, “for this cause” (Eph. v. 31). But in i. 20, xix. 44; 
Acts xii. 23 it=dyri rovrwy, 6ru; and it may have the same mean- 
ing here. “There is nothing hid, that shall not be known: 
because whatever ye have said in the darkness shall be heard in 
the light,”"—guoniam que in tenebris dixistis in lumine dicentur 
(Vulg.). Christ is continuing to insist that hypocrisy is folly, far 
it is always unmasked at last. There was a saying of Hille, 
“Think of nothing that it will not be easily heard, for in the end 
it must be heard.” See small print on i. 20. It is in wording 
that this is parallel to Mt. x. 26, 27: the application is very 
different. 

év Tots Tapelois .. . emt Tay Swpdtwy. “Store chambers” are 
commonly “‘zzzer chambers, secret rooms,” especially in the East, 
where outer walls are so easily dug through: comp. Mt. vi. 6, 
xxiv. 26; Gen. xlili. 30; Judg. xvi. 9; 1 Kings xxii. 25. To this 
day proclamations are often made from the housetops: comp. et 
tav Swudrwy (Is. xv. 3; Jer. xix. 13, xlvili. 38). See D.B? i 
p. 1407; Renan, Zes Evangiles, p. 262 n. 

The Latin Versions give a variety of renderings: zw cel/ardzs (ilr), zn 
promptalibus (d), 2 promptuarits (e), in cubzlibus (Vulg. (f); om. bq). 
Comp. ver. 24. 


4. Adyw 8é Sytv tots pidors pou. “ My friends are not likely 


XII. 4-6.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 319 


to be hypocrites, although persecution will tempt them to become 
such”: comp. Jn. xv. 15. 
py doBnoite aad Tay aroxtewévtwv. The use of dxé here is 
analogous to that in ver. I, of that which one turns away from. It is 
Hebraistic (Lev. xix. 30, xxvi. 2; Deut. i. 29, iii. 22, xx. 1; Josh. xi. 6; 
1 Sam. vii. 7; Jer. i. 8, 17; 1 Mac. ii. 62, viii. 12, etc.) It is not used of 
fearing God. 

peta tadta, The plural may refer to the details of a cruel 
death, or to different kinds of death. Not in Mt. x. 28. 

py éxdvtav. Lk. is fond of this classical use of €xewv: ver. 50, 
Vii. 40, 42, xiv. 14; Acts iv. 14, xxiii. 17, 18, 19, xxv. 26, xxviii: 
19. Here Mt. (x. 28) has py duvapévor. 

5. hoByOnte tov peta 1d daokteivat Exovra efouciav, x.T.d. 
There is little doubt that this refers to God and not to the devil. 
The change of construction points to this. It is no longer 
poByGyre ad Tovtov, but rovrov PoByOynre, “fear without trying 
to shun,” which is the usual construction of fearing God. More- 
over, we are not in Scripture told to fear Satan, but to resist him 
courageously (Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet. v. 9) ; Tov Gcov doPnOyre, Td dia BorAw 
dvtiornte is scriptural doctrine. Moreover, although the evil one 
tries to bring us to Gehenna, it is not he who has authority to send 
us thither. This passage (with Mt. x. 28), the king with twenty 
thousand (see on xiv. 33), and the Unjust Steward (see on xvi. 1), 
are perhaps the only passages in which the same words have been 
interpreted by some of Satan and by others of God. 

épBadeiv cis thy yeevvav. Excepting here and Jas. iii. 6, 
yéevva occurs only in Mt. and Mk. in N.T. Notin LXX. The 
confusion caused in all English Versions prior to RV. by translat- 
ing both yéewa and adys “hell” has been often pointed out. 
Lft. On Revision, pp. 87, 88; Trench, On the AV. p. 21. Téewa 
is a transliteration of Ge-Hinnom, “Valley of Hinnom,” where 
children were thrown into the red-hot arms of Molech. When 
these abominations were abolished by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10), 
refuse of all kinds, including carcases of criminals, was. thrown 
into this valley, and (according to late authorities) consumed by 
fire, which was ceaselessly burning. Hence it became a symbolical 
name for the place of punishment in the other world. D.Z.? artt. 
“Gehenna,” “ Hinnom,” and “ Hell.” 

6. mévte otpoulia . . . docapiwy Svo. Mt. has vo ozpovbia 
Gooapiov. Both have év é§ adray od, which is more expressive than 
ovdev é& aitay, throwing the emphasis on &: “not even one of 
them,” although five cost so little. Both orpov6ds and ozpovOiov 
commonly mean “sparrow,” although sometimes used vaguely for 
“bird” or “fowl”: eg. Ps. xi. 1, lxxxiv. 4. The Heb. ¢ziffor, 
which it often represents, is still more commonly generic, and was 
applied to any variety of small passerine birds, which are specially 


320 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIL 6-9, 


numerous in Palestine, and were all allowed as food. Tristram, JVad. 
fist. of B. p. 201. It is unfortunate that déoodpuov and its fourth 
part xodpdvrys (Mt. v. 26; Mk. xii. 42) should both be translated 
“farthing,” while dyvaprov, which was ten to sixteen times as much 
as an doodpuor, is translated “penny.” “Shilling” for dyvapior, 
“penny” for doodpiov, and “farthing” for xodpévrys would give 
the ratios fairly correctly, although a shilling now will buy only 
about half what a denarius would buy then. 

évimuov tod Oeod. A Hebraism, very freq. in Lk. (i. 19, xvi. 
15; Acts iv. 19, vil. 46: comp. Lk. i. 6, 15, 75 ; Acts viii. 21, x. 4). 
It implies that each bird is individually present to the mind of 
God. Belief in the minuteness of the Divine care was strong 
among the Jews: (Von est vel minima herbula in terra cui non 
prefectus sit aliguis in celo. 

7. GANG kal ai tpixes THs Kehadfs. “ But (little as you might 
expect it) even the hairs of your head.” Comp. xxi 18; Acts 
XXVil. 34; 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kings i. 52; Dan. iii. 27. 

PB} poBetobe . . . Siaddpete. ‘“‘ Cease to fear (pres. imper.). . 
ye are different from, z.e. are superior to”: Mt. vi. 26, xii. 12; 
1 Cor. xv. 41; Gal. iv. 1. This use of dtadépw is classical. 

8. Adyw Sé buiv. The “also” of AV. (“Also I say unto you”) 
is impossible. The fear of men, which lies at the root of 
hypocrisy, as opposed to the fear of a loving God, appears to be 
the connecting thought. 


mas. Nom pend. placed first with much emphasis. For similar con- 
structions comp. xxi. 6; Jn. vi. 39, vil. 38, xvii. 2. 


dpodoyycet év éuot, The expression comes from the Syriac rather 
than the Hebrew, and occurs only here and Mt. x. 32. The phrase 
opvupe év (Mt. v. 34-36) is not quite parallel. Here perhaps the 
second éuoAcyyoeu requires év, and this leads to its being used 
with the first. That Christ will confess His disciples is not true 
in the same sense that they will confess Him: but they will make 
a confession zz His case, and He will make a confession z# theirs ; 
their confession being that He is the Messiah, and His that they 
are His loyal disciples. As early as the Gnostic teacher Heracleon 
(¢. A.D. 170-180), the first commentator on the N.T. of whom 
we have knowledge, this év after 6uoAoyyoe attracted notice.t 

9. dmapynPycetar évaimov Tay dyyéAwv. This expressive com- 
pound verb is used of Peter’s denial of Christ (xxii. 34, 61; Mt. 
xxvi. 34, 75, Mk. xiv. 30, 72)» In Mt. we have dpvycopa Kayo 
aitov éumpoobev tod watpds pov. Note that Lk. has his favourite 
éevwmov for éumpoobev (see on i, 15), and that he has “the 
Angels of God” where Mt. has ‘‘ My Father”: comp. xv. To. 


1The fragment of Heraclecn, preserved by Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9, is 
translated by Westcott, Canon of V.7. p. 275, 3rd ed. 


XII. 10, 11.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 321 


10. Comp. Mt. xii. 31, 32 and Mk. iii. 28, 29, in both which 
places this difficult saying is closely connected with the charge 
brought against our Lord of castigg out demons through Beelzebub ; 
a charge recorded by Lk. without this saying (xi. 15-20). We 
cannot doubt that Mt. and Mk. give the actual historical con- 
nexion, if these words were uttered only once. 

was. Here again Lk. has a favourite word (see on vii. 35): 
Mt. has és éav, and Mk. has és av. Also for eis tév vidv Mt. has 
Kata Tov viod. For this use of «is after BAacdypetv and the like 
comp. xxii. 65; Acts vi.11; Heb. xii.3. After duaprdve it is the 
regular construction, xv. 18, 21, xvil. 4; Acts xxv. 8, etc. The 
Jewish law was, “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he 
shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall certainly 
stone him” (Lev. xxiv. 16). 

Td Gytov mvedpa. See oni. 15. 

ovk ddefycetar. Constant and consummate opposition to the 
influence of the Holy Spirit, because of a deliberate preference 
of darkness to light, renders repentance, and therefore forgiveness, 
morally impossible. Grace, like bodily food, may be rejected 
until the power to receive it perishes. See on 1 Jn. v. 16 in 
Camb. Grk. Test.,and comp. Heb. vi. 4-8, x. 26-31. The identity 
of the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” with the “sin unto 
death” is sometimes denied (D.Z.? i. p. 442); but a sin which 
will never be forgiven must be a sin unto death. Schaff’s Herzog, 
i. p. 302. In each case there is no question of the efficacy of 
the Divine grace. The state of him who is guilty of this sin is 
such as to exclude its application (Wsctt. on Heb. vi. 1-8, p. 165). 
Blasphemy, like lying, may be acted as well as uttered: and it 
cannot safely be argued that d/asphemy against the Spirit must be 
a sin of speech (Kurzg. Kom. N.T.i. p. 75). See Aug. on Mt. xii, 
31, 323 also Paschasius Radbertus, Migne, cxx. 470-472. 

11, 12. Comp. xxi. 14, 15, which is parallel to both Mt. x. 19, 
20 and Mk. xiii. 11, but not so close to them in wording as these 
verses are. The connexion here is evident. There is no need 
to be afraid of committing this unpardonable blasphemy by ill- 
advised language before a persecuting tribunal; for the Holy 
Spirit Himself will direct their words. 

ll. cichépwoww Spas emi tds cuvaywyds. In all four passages 
their being brought before synagogues is mentioned. The elders 
of the synagogue were responsibie for discipline. They held courts, 
and could sentence to excommunication (vi. 22; Jn. ix. 22, xii. 
42, xvi. 2), or scourging (Mt. x. 17), which was inflicted by the 
ianpérys (see on iv. 20). Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. 
II. ii. pp. 59-67 ; Derenbourg, ist. de /a Pal. pp. 86 ff. The épxat 
and éfouctat would include the Sanhedrin and Gentile tribunals. 


a 


py peptpvnonte TOs 4 Ti dwoAoyjonobe. Neither the form nor 
21 


322 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIL 11-15. 


the matter of the defence is to cause great anxiety beforehand. See 
on ver. 22 and x. 41. Excepting Rom. ii. 15 and 2 Cor. xii. 19, 
dmoXoyetv is peculiar to Lk. (xxi. 14 and six times in Acts) 
Here Mt. and Mk. have AaAyonre. 


D 157, abcde ff,ilq Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Aeth. omit 4 rl, which may 
possibly come from Mt. x. 19. If so, this is a Western non-interpolation. 
See note at the end of ch. xxiv. WH. bracket. 


12. év aiti tH pa. “In that very hour”: see small print on 
x. 7,and comp. Exod. iv. 12 and 2 Tim. iv. 17. Renan points out 
the correspondence between this passage and Jun. xiv. 26, xv. 26 
(V. de. p. 297, ed. 1863). Comp. Ix. ive £1: 

13-15. § The Avaricious Brother rebuked. This incident forms 
the historical introduction to the Parable of the Rich Fool 
(16-21), just as the lawyer’s questions (x. 25-30) form the his- 
torical introduction to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. 
Comp. xiv. 15, xv. 1-3. We are not told whether the man was 
making an unjust claim on his brother or not; probably not: 
but he was certainly making an unjust claim on Jesus, whose 
work did not include settling disputes about property. The man 
grasped at any means of obtaining what he desired, invading 
Christ’s time, and trying to impose upon his brother an extraneous 
authority. Facile ii, gui doctorem spiritualem admirantur, eo 
delabuntur, ut velint eo abuti ad domestica componenda (Beng.). 
Compare Christ’s treatment of the questions respecting the pay- 
ment of the ddrachma, the woman taken in adultery, and payment 
of tribute to Cesar. 

18. ciwé TG dSeXpG pov. He does not ask Jesus to arbitrate 
between him and his brother, but to give a decision against his 
brother. There is no evidence that the brother consented to 
arbitration. 2 

14, “AvOpwre. A severe form of address, rather implying dis- 
approbation or a desire to stand aloof, xxii. 58, 60; Rom. ii. 1, 
ix. 20. Comp. Soph. 47. 791, 1154. As in the case of the lepers 
whom He healed (v. 14, xvii. 14), Jesus abstains from invading 
the office of constituted authorities. No one appointed Him 
(xaréornoev) to any such office. Comp. Tis ce xatéornoev apxovta 
kal duxacriy ef av; (Exod. ii. 14), words which may have been 
familiar to this intruder. Comp. Jn. xviii. 36. 

peptomyy. Here only in N.T. Not in LXX. There is no 
need to interpret it of the person who actually executes the 
sentence of partition pronounced by the xpirjs. The xpirjs who 
decides for partition is a pepiorys. 

15. gvddocecbe dwé. The expression is classical (Xen. He//. vii. 2. 103 


Cyr. ii. 3. 9), but the only similar passage in N.T. is @vAdgare éaurd dnd 
rav clddd\wy (I Jn. v. 21): it is stronger than mpocéxere dad, 


XI. 15-17.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM = 323 


dons mheovesias. “Every form of covetousness ” : comp. 
mavra Tetpag pov, * ‘every kind of temptation” (iv. 13) ; Taca duaptia 
kal raodnpia (Mt. xii. 31). On mAcovecia, “the greedy desire to 
have more,” as a more comprehensive vice than prrapyrpia, see 
Lft. Zp. P. 56 and on Col. iii. 5. He quotes ¢uvAdfacbe otv ad 
Ths Topvetas Kal THs piAapyupias (Test. XLL. Pair. Jud. xviii.), and 
somewhat differs from Trench, Sym. xxiv. Jesus, knowing what 
is at the root of the brother’s unreasonicxe request, takes the 
opportunity of warning the whole multitude (zpos airovs) against 
this prevalent and subtle sin. 

ouk év TO Teptocevelv tut. Not in the fact that a man has 
abundance iis it the case that his life is the outcome of his 
possessions” ; 7.e. it does not follow, because a man has abundance, 
that his life consists in wealth. Some render, “For not because 
one has abundance, is his life part of his possessions,” ze. so that 
he can secure it. But the other is simpler. Life depends for 
its value upon the use which we make of 7a trdpyovra, and for 
its prolongation upon the will of God. It is unlikely that 4 {Loy 
here means or includes eternal life; but it includes the higher 
life as distinct from Pios. Comp. ov yep ev 7H trepBorH 70 
arapKes oud 7 7 mpakts, Suvarov & Kal pay dpxovra yas Kai Gadarrns 
mpdrrewy a KoAd’ Kal yap dao perpiwy Suvair’ ay tis mpatrew Kara 


tiv apernv (Arist. Zth. WVic. x. 8. 9). 


For the'dat. after repiscevery comp. xxi. 4 and Tobit iv. 16, and for that 
after 7a Urdpxovra see on Vili. 3. 


16-21. § The Parable of the Rich Fool, which illustrates both 
points ;—that the life that is worth living does not depend upon 
wealth, which may be a trouble and anxiety; and that even mere 
existence cannot be secured by wealth. 

16. Etrev 8é TapaBoAiy mes. Each separate combination is 
characteristic: efrev 5é, etwev wapaBorynv, and elrev zpos. 
See on vi. 39, and comp. xv. 

edpdopycev. Here only in bibl. Grk. Josephus uses it of 
Galilee as productive of oil (2. 7. ii. 21. 2); but elsewhere it 
occurs in this sense in medical writers only (Hobart, Pp. 144): 
comp. teAea popely (viii. 14). 

4) xépa. Comp. xxi. 21; Jn. iv. 35; Jas. v. 4. There is 
no hint that the man’s wealth was unjustly acquired; and this 
is some slight confirmation of the view that the brother’s claim 
was not unjust (ver. 13). There is perhaps a reference to Ecclus. 
xi. 18, 19 or to Ps. xlix. 16-20. 

17. Ti woow; Comp. Eccles. v. ro. 

otk €xw Tod ouvdgw. Quasi nusquam essent quibus pascendis 
possent impendi (Grot.). nopum sinus, viduarum domus, ora 
infantum .. . iste sunt apothece gue maneant in xternum (Ambr.). 


324 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII 17-20, 


Note the repetition of pov: “my fruits, my barns, my goods, my 
soul.” It is just here that there is some resemblance to the story 
of Nabal: “Shall I take my bread, and my water, and my flesh 
that I have killed for my shearers and give.it unto men of whom 
I know not whence they be?” (1 Sam. xxv. 11): but it is toomuch 
to say that there is an evident reference to Nabal. 

18. xafeXd. First with emphasis: he is eager to set to work. 
But pauperum nulla mentio (Beng.). Comp. adedet, which is the 
true reading, Rev. xxii. 19; and see Veitch, p. 25. Note the 
chiasmus between kaGeXG and oikodouyjow. 


The text of the words which follow xat cuvdéw éxe? is much confused, 
but mdvra tov otrov Kal Ta dyabd pov (N#°BLTX, Syr-Hare. Boh. Sah. 
Aeth. Arm.) is probably correct, the ov after ctrov (§ 2° X, Syr-Harc. Boh. 
Sah. Aeth. ) being rejected as an insertion. 

WH. give the evidence in full (ii. p. 103), and regard it as a marked 
instance of conflation. Comp. ix. 10, xi. 54, xxiv. 53. The main facts are 
these. The expression 7a yerquara is very common in LXX for the fruits 
of the earth, and the phrase cuvayew Ta yevfuata occurs Exod. xxiii. 10 ; 
Lev. xxv. 20; Jer. viii. 13. The familiar 7a yevquard wou was substituted 
in some documents for the unusual combination tév oirov cal Ta dyabd 
(* D), in others for rdv ctrov (AQ EFG H etc.), in one for 7a dya8d pov 
(346) ; yet another variation is caused by the substitution of tods xapmovs mou 
(from ver. 17) for the whole of the unusual combination (39), omnes fructus 
meos(acde). Thus we have— 

(a) Tov ctrov [mou] kal Ta dyadd pov, 

(8) 1. Ta yevjpara et 

2. Tovs Kapmovs Lov. 
(6) 1. 7a yevquatd pov kal Td dyabd et 
2. Tov ciréy pou Kal Ta YyevjuaTd pov. 
The common reading (6. 1) is a conflation of 8. 1 and a 


19. ép tH Wuxq pod. There is probably no irony in making 
him address, not his body, but his soul: the Yuxy is here used as 
the seat of all joyous emotions. Comp. BA pepyvare TH YuxH tt 
payyre (ver. 22). Field quotes Kaptépyoov, Wuxn, mpobecpuiav 
oUVTOPOY, | iva Tov mA€iw xpdvoy arodavons dao pahods 7Sovys (Charit. 
Aphrod. iii. 2); and Wetst. quotes OappyvG éuavrdv Kat mpos TH 
€pavtod Wuyi eirav’ "AOnvaios etut (Libanius, D xvi. p. 463). See 
Stallbaum on Plat. Repub. ii. 8, p. 365 A. 


keipeva els Eryn oddd* dvaratov, ddye, mle. These words are 
omitted in D and some Latin authorities (abcde ff). With eis érn woAha 
comp. Jas. iv. 13-17; Prov. xxvii. 1; Ecclus. xxix. 12: and with oaye, whe 
comp. Tobit vii. 10 and the remarkable parallel Ecclus. xi. 19. The 
asyndeton marks the man’s confidence and eagerness. 


20. cimev 8€ adtS 6 Oeds. This is a parable, not history. It 
is futile to ask how God spoke to him. For “Adpwv see on xi. 40 
and xxiv. 25. The tatty tH vuxti is placed first in emphatic 
contrast to the éry woAAd. See Schanz, pp. 347, 348. 

Thy Wuxyv cou aitodow dad ood. “They are demanding thy 


XII. 20-22.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 325 


soul of thee”: the present tense is very impressive. They do 
not demand it for themselves, and so we have act. and not mid. 
Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20; and see the parallel lesson Wisd. xv. 8. For 
the impersonal plural comp. av. 11, 48, vi. 38, XVi. 9, Xxill. 31. 
There is no need to think of dyyeAor Gavarydopor (Job xxxiii. 23), 
or of Ayorai (x. 30). 

& S€ Frotpacas, tim Zotar; WVulg. Rhem. and RV. preserve 
the telling order: guze autem parasti cujus erunt? “And the 
things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?” Comp. 
Ps. xxxix. 6, xlix. 6; Eccles. ii. 18-23; Job xxvii. 17-22. When 
not even his yvx7 is his own to dispose of, what will become of 
his dya6a? 

21. Oncaupifev aitd. Comp. Mt. vi. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 14; and 
for the eis before Gedv comp. xvi. 8. It is to be regretted that the 
eis is rendered differently in the two passages in both AV. (“‘in, 
towards”) and RV. (“for, toward”). “ Being rich toward God” 
means being rich in those things which are pleasing to Him. 
Amassing wealth without reference to the God who bestows it is 
mAcovegia, and wAcoveéia is appoovvy. 

The change from air@ to els Geov, instead of Oc, is intentional, and 
Juvenal’s dives t2bz, pauper amiczs (v. 113) is not quite parallel; nor again 
Hecato in Cic. De Off iii. 15. 63: Negue enim solum nobis divites esse 


volumus, sed liberts, propinguts, amicis, maximeque ret publicw. The whole 
verse is omitted in D andabd. 


22-58. God’s Providential Care and the Duty of Trust in 
Him (22-34) and of Watchfulness for the Kingdom (35-48) 
which Christ came to found (49-53). The address to the people 
(vv. 15-21) being ended, Jesus once more turns specially to the 
disciples; and it should be noticed that in doing so He no 
longer speaks in parables. That what follows was spoken on the 
same occasion as what precedes seems to be intended by Lk., but 
is not stated. The dca rotro is included in the traditional report 
(see Mt. vi. 25), and proves nothing as to the original historical 
connexion. It is more to the point to notice that covetousness 
and hoarding are the result of want of trust in God (Heb. xiii. 5), 
and that an exhortation to trust in God’s fatherly care follows 
naturally on a warning against covetousness. There is logical, but 
not necessarily chronological connexion. More convincing is the 
coincidence between details. The mention of sowing, reaping, 
store-chamber, and barn (ver. 24) may have direct reference to the 
abundant harvests and insufficient barns in the parable (zz. 17, 18). 
But it does not follow, because this lesson was given immediately 
after the parable of the Rich Fool, that therefore it was not part 
of the Sermon on the Mount; any more than that, because it was 
delivered there, it cannot have been repeated here. 

22. Etwev 8€ mpds Tots padytds. Note both the dé and the 


326 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XII. 22-26. 


7pés, and comp. ver. 16, vii. 50, ix. 13, 14, 59, 62, etc. Assuming 
a connexion with what precedes, Ata todto will mean, “ Because 
life does not depend on riches.” 

py peptuvate. “Be not anxious”: comp. ver. 11 and x. 21. 
See Lft. On Revision, 2nd ed. p. 190; Trench, On the A.V. p. 
39; T. L. O. Davies, Bible English, p. 100, for evidence that 
“thought” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries meant 
distressing anxiety. Comp. 1 Sam. ix. 5 with x. 2. S. Paul 
reiterates Christ’s teaching (1 Cor. vil. 32; Phil. iv. 6). 

TH oxy. Not, “zz your soul,” but, “for your soul.” Here 
again the reference to the parable (Wvx7, daye) seems to be direct. 
If so, the necessity for translating yvx7 in the same way in both 
passages is all the stronger. The ywvx7 is the source of physical 
life and physical enjoyment. 

23. mheidv eotiv THs tpopas. “Is something greater than the 
food” (comp. xi. 31, 32). Therefore He who gave the greater will 
not fail to provide the less. 

24. xatavoyoate. A favourite verb: see on ver. 27. Mt. has 
euBréware; and for tods xépaxas he has ra zerewa Tod ovpavov. 
Ravens are mentioned nowhere else in N.T., but often in O.T. 
See especially tis 8 jrotuacev xépaxt Bopdvy (Job xxxviii. 41), and 
Kal OwdovtTe Tots KTHVvEerL Tpopiy aditav Kal Tos VooGOIS TOV KOpaKwv 
Tots émixadoupevors aitdv (Ps. cxlvii. 9g). The name (Heb. ’ored) 
covers the whole of the crow tribe (including rooks and jack- 
daws) which is strongly represented in Palestine. Like the vulture, 
the raven acts as a scavenger: but it is a fable that it turns its 
young out of the nest, leaving them to feed themselves, and that 
this is the point of our Lord’s mention of them. The raven is 
very careful of its young; and God feeds both old and young. 
Tristram, JVat. Hist. of B. pp. 198-201. 


Here Vulg. bfl have ced/arcum for tapeiov, while d has promptuarium. 
See on ver. 3. 


Staddpete tav metewav. See on ver. 7. ‘The birds are God’s 
creatures; but ye are God’s children”: 6 warjp tpav (Mt.), not 
avTav. 

25. Tis Sé e& Suav. See on xi. 5. 

pepipvav Sdvatar emt Thy HAuktav mpoobetvar mhxuv. “* By being 
anxious can add a sfam to his age.” That 7Arxéa here means 
“age” (Heb. xi. 11; Jn. ix. 21, 23), and not “stature ” (xix. 3), is 
clear from the context. It was prolongation of life that the anxiety 
of the rich fool failed to secure. Not many people give anxious 
thought to the problem of adding to their stature ; and the addition 
of a whyus (the length of the forearm) would be monstrous, and 
would not be spoken of as éAdyiorov. Many persons do give 
anxious thought to the prolongation of their allotted age, and 


XII. 25-28.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 327 


that by any amount, great or small. Wetst. quotes Mimnermus, 
anxviov éxi xpdovov EvOcow ABys teptoueba, See on ii. 52, where 
qAuxia probably means stature. For mhxus see D.Z.) iii. pp. 
1736 ff. ; and for the literature on Hebrew Weights and Measures, 
Schaff’s Herzog, iv. p. 2486. 


26. el ody oS? EXdytorov SivacGe. These words have no equivalent 
in Mt. and are omitted in D, which for the whole verse has simply «al 7repl 
Tov Aomwdy Tl pepiuvare. So also abcd ffjilr: et de ceteris quid sollicité 
estts, By tay oirav are meant clothing (Mt.), food, and other bodily 
necessities. 

For ov we might have expected wydé. But el=érel, and the sentence 
is conditional in form only. “If (as is certain) ye cannot ” = ‘* Since ye 
cannot.” Comp. Jn. iii. 12, v. 47; 1 Cor. xi. 6; Heb. xii. 25. Win. lv. 2, 
a, p. 600. Or we may consider ov’dé as belonging to dvvacée, and not to 
the whole sentence: ‘“‘If ye are unable.” Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 183. 
But the former is better. 


27. ta xpiva. Mt. adds rod daypod. The word occurs no- 
where else in N.T., but is freq. in LXX, esp. in Cant. (ii. 16, iv. 
5, V- 13, Vi. 2, 3, etc.): Heb. shushan or shoshannah. Some 
flower with a brilliant colour is evidently meant, and the colour is 
one to which human lips can be compared (Cant. v. 13). Either 
the scarlet Martagon (Zi/ium Chalcedonicum) or the scarlet anemone 
(anemone coronaria) may be the flower that is thus named. Like 
otpovdia, however (ver. 7), xpiva may be generic; and to this day 
the Arabs call various kind of flowers “lilies.” See D.&. art. 
“Lily”; and comp. Stanley, Sz. & Pal. pp. 139, 430. Note that, 
while Mt. has xatapav@dvev, Lk. has his favourite xatavoeiv 
(ver. 24, Vi. 41, xx. 23; Acts vil. 31, 32, xi. 6, xxvii. 39). For 
Koma see on v. 5: it covers the works of men, me that of 
women. 


After 7a xplva rs D has ofre v7jGet odre bdalvet, while d has gzomodo 
meque neunt neque texunt, and a has guomodo non texunt neque neunt. 
Several other Lat. texts have zexunt. Thus, guomodo crescunt non laborant 
neque neunt neque texunt (blr); guomodo crescunt non nent neque texunt (c) ; 
quomodo crescunt non laborant non neunt neque texunt (ff,); and, by a 
curious slip, gzomodo non crescunt non laborant neque neunt neque texunt (i). 


28. ei SE év dypO. First with emphasis. “If in the field,” 
where such care might seem to be superfluous. AV. wrongly 
takes év dypé with évta ojpepor, following Vulg. quod hodie in agro 
est. Both here and in Mt. the night connexion is, “which to- day 
is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven.” For k\iBavos, a portable 
oven, as distinct from imvos, see D.B. The xdAcBavos is often 
mentioned in LXX, generally as a simile for great heat (Ps. xx. 9; 
Hos. vii. 4-7, etc.) ; izvos neither in LXX nor in N.T. Wood 
being scarce in Palestine, grass is commonly used_as fuel. For 
éudidfer, which is a late word (Job xxix. 14, xxxi. 19), see 
Veitch. 


328 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XII. 29-82. 


29. kat Guets pt Lntetre. ‘And do you cease to seek”: comp. 
ver. II, Vi. 30, 37, Vii. 13, Vill. 49, 50, 52, etc. Mt. has the aor. 
Pepyyao TE. 

py petewpitecQe. In class. Grk. and in LXX (Ps. cxxx. 1; 
2 Mac. v. 17, vil. 34) this would probably mean, “ Be not lifted 
up, do not exalt yourselves, seek not high things.” So the Vulg. 
nolte in sublime toll. Old Latin texts differ: molite solliciti esse ; 
nec solliciti sitis (c); non abalienetis vos (d): and many omit the 
passage. Luth. fakret nicht hoch her. Tyn. Cov. and Cran. “neither 
clyme ye up an high.” But most commentators interpret it as a 
metaphor from ships tossing at sea: ‘‘ Waver not anxiously, be 
not tossed about with cares.” Comp. peréwpov ev dow of a 
criminal expecting punishment (Jos. J. /. iv. 2. 5); and see 
S. Cox, who turns the word into a parable, Zxfosztor, 1st series, 
i. p. 249, 1875. Edersheim contenas for the LXX meaning, “be 
not uplifted” (Z. & 7. ii. p. 217). The verb is one of the rarer 
words which are common to N.T., Philo, and Plutarch. , 

30. taita yap mévta. This is the right combination; not 
mavta 7a €Ovn: hec enim omnia gentes mundi guerunt. The 
heathen seek anxiously after all these things, because they know 
nothing of God’s providential care. The phrase ra evn tov 
kécpov occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX, but represents an 
Aramaic expression common in Rabbinical writings. 


The plural verb shows that the different nations are considered dis- 
tributively ; and the compound expresses the anxiety with which they seek. 
Each nation seeks laboriously after the sum-total of these things. On the 
difference between Tatra mdvra here and mdvra 7atra, Mt. vi. 32, see ate 
lxi. 2. b, p. 686. In both places émifnrovow is the true Ber and 
émi{nret a grammatical correction. 


Suav 8 6 matyp. But you, who know that you have such a 
Father, have no need to be disturbed about these wants. 

81. Lk. alone has his favourite mhyv. See on vi. 24. “ But 
(dismissing all this useless anxiety) continue to seek,” etc. Mt. 
adds zpdrov to fnretre. 


Origen quotes ele yap 6 "Ingots rots pabyrais atrod Alreire ra peydda 
kal Ta pLKpd duty mpooreOncerat, Kal alretre 7a émoupdvia Kal Td émlyea 
mpooreOhoerat vuiv (De Orat. § 2). Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 24, p. 416, 
ed. Potter, and iv. 6, p. 579. 


32. This verse has no parallel in Mt., and it is the only verse 
in this“section which is entirély without equivalent in the Sermon 
onthe Mount. The passage reads so well both with and without it, 
that it is difficult to see why it should have been either inserted or 
omitted without authority. In it the Good Shepherd assures His 
flock that, while the anxious seeking of the dAvyomurrov after food 
and raiment is vain, their seeking after the Kingdom of God will 


XII. 82-34.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 320 


not be vain. He gives the Kingdom to those who seek it, and 
with it gives the necessaries of life. Wéereas those who neglect 
the Kingdom that they may secure the necessaries, may lose both. 
Kuptos Toupaiver pe, Kal ovdey pe torepyoer (Ps. xxiii. 1). The 
puxpov motvuov are the disciples as contrasted with the pupiddes 
Tov 6xXov (ver. 1). 


mouuvloy = mouuévioy, which is not a diminutive, and therefore paxpov is 
neither superfluous nor an epithet of affection, but an expression of fact. 


On the nom. with the art. for the voc. see on x. 21; and for evddxnoev see 


Lft. on Col. i. 19, and comp. Rom. xv. 26. 


83. The first half of this verse (to 7aatovpeva) has no parallel 
in Mt. As in vi. 29, 30, we have a rule given, not that it may be 
kept literally, but that it may illustrate a principle. So far as 
attachment to our possessions is concerned, we must be ready to 
part with them (1 Cor. vii. 30). Our fondness for them is not 
our justification for keeping them. But there is no Ebionism 
here, no condemnation of possessions as sinful.1_ As Bede points 
out, Christians are not commanded to retain nothing for their 
own use (for Christ Himself had a purse out of which He gave 
alms), but to take care that fear of poverty does not interfere with 
benevolence. Almsgiving is not to be a mere giving of what we 
can spare. Nor is it merely for the sake of the receiver. It is 
also for the good of the giver, that his heart may be freed from 
covetousness. ‘The attempt to keep the letter of the rule here 
given (Acts ii. 44, 45) had disastrous effects on the Church of 
Jerusalem, which speedily became a Church of _paupers, constantly 
in need of alms (Rom. xv. 25, 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 4, 
ix. 1). Fora émdépxovta see on viii. 3; and for Badddvtia see on x. 4. 

dvéxherrrtov. Not elsewhere in N.T. or LXX. Comp. xvi. 9, 
xxii. 32; and, for the command, Mk. x. 41. Heaven is not to 
be bought with money; but, by almsgiving, what would be a 
hindrance is made a help.? In ows the reference perhaps is to 
costly garments, which are a favourite form of wealth in the 
East. The word occurs Is. 1. 9, li. 8; Job iv. 19, xxvii. 18; 
Prov. xiv. 32; but in N.T. only here and Mt. vi. 19. 

34. Almost verbatim as Mt. vi. 21. S. Paul states a similar 


1 On the alleged Ebionism of Lk. see Introd: § 3. b, and also Alexander, 
Leading Ideas of the Gospels, pp. 163= 

* Margoliouth quotes from El- Ghawale s pane of the Religious Sciences 
many. striking sayings attributed to Christ by Mahometan writers: among them 
these. ‘‘He that seeks after this world is like one that drinks sea-water. 
The more he drinks the thirstier he becomes, until it slay him” (iii. 161). 
“ There are three dangers in wealth. First, it may be taken from an unlawful 
source. And what if it be taken from a lawful source? they asked. He 
answered : It may be given to an unworthy person. They asked, And what if 
it be given toa worthy person? He answered, The handling of it may divert 
its owner from God ” (iii. 178). 


330 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII 84-87. 


principle 1 Cor. vii. 32-34. Wealth stored up in this world has 
many enemies ; that which is stored in heaven is safe from them 
all. The ydp is specially to be noted. The reason why treasure 
must be stored in heaven is that the hearts of those who bestow 
it may be drawn heavenwards. 

35-48. The Duty of Loyal Vigilance. From ver. 35 to ver. 38 
this section has no parallel in Mt. The interpellation of Peter 
(ver. 41) is also peculiar to Lk. But wv. 39, 40 and 42-46 are 
parallel to Mt. xxiv. 43-51. The discourse once more takes 4 
parabolic turn, watchfulness being inculcated by the parables of the 
Master’s Return (3 on 38, 42-48) and of the Thief’s Attack (39, 40). 

35. “Eotwoav Spay ai dapves mepteLoopévar, The long garments 
of the East are a fatal hindrance to activity. Comp. xvii. 8; 
Acts xil. 8; 1 Kings xviii. 46 ; 2 Kings iv. 29, ix. 1; Job xxxviii. 3, 
xl. 7; Jer. 1.17. Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 
158. Note the emphatic position of épév and pets. “‘ Whatever 
others may do, this is to be your condition.” 

ot AUXvor Katdpevot, K.t.A. This is the parable of the Ten 
Virgins condensed (Mt. xxv. 1). 

836. mpoodexopnévois.  Lxpectantibus (Vulg.) cum desiderio et 
gaudio (Beng.): comp. ii. 25, 38, xxiii. 51. 

méte dvahion ék TOv ydpwv. If the rendering “when he shall 
return from,” etc., is correct, this is the only place in N.T. in which 
the verb has this meaning: comp. 2 Mac. viii. 25, xiii. 7, xv. 28; 
3 Mac. v. 21; Wisd. ii. 1. The more usual sense is “break up 
(a feast, camp, etc.), depart”: comp. Phil. i. 23; Judith xiii. 1; 
2 Mac. ix. 1: and this may be the meaning here. See instances 
in Wetst. So Luther, wenn er aufbrechen wird. ‘The wedding 
is not his own, but that of a friend which he has been attending. 
In Esther (ii. 18, ix. 22) ydmou is used of any banquet or festival : 
but the literal meaning is better here.! 


For the plural of a single marriage feast comp. xiv. 8; Mt. xxii. 2, 
xxy. IO, and see Win, xxvii. 3, p. 219. For the constr. tva é6évr0s « « ' 
dvolfwow atrG see Win. xxx. II, p. 259, and comp. xv. 20. 


87. mepiLdcetar Kal dvakdwet adtods. Comp. Rev. iii. 20, 21, 
Christ acted in this way when He washed the disciples’ feet: not, 
however, in gratitude for their faithful vigilance, but to teach 
them humility. Nevertheless, that was a type of what is promised 
here: comp. Rey. xix. 9. References to the Sa‘urnal/ia, when 
Roman masters and slaves changed places in sport, are here 


1 Kimchi on Is. Ixv. mentions a saying of R. Johanan ben Zacchai, who in- 
vited his servants without fixing a time: sapzentes se ornarunt, stolidi abierunt 
ad opera sua. Thus some went ornatz and others sordzdz, when the time came, 
pene the latter were disgraced (Keim, /es. of Naz. v. p. 256. Comp. Schoettgen, 

p- 216). 


XII. 37-41.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 331 


quite out of place. The parable xvii. 7-10 sets forth the usual 
course between master and man. 

88. Seutépa. The first watch is not mentioned, because then 
the wedding-feast was going on. These are probably the two 
last of the ¢hvee Jewish watches (Judg. vii. 19), not the two middle 
watches of the Roman four (Mk. xili. 35; Acts xii. 4). See on 
xxli. 34 and D.B. art. “Watches of Night.” In D, Marcion, 
Irenzus, and some other authorities, the first watch (79 éorepw7j 
vAakh) is inserted: WH. ii. App. p. 61. 

89. ywwoxete. Probably indic. But Vulg. Luth. Beza, and 
all English Versions make it imperat. There is nothing strange 
in the sudden change of metaphor, especially in Oriental language. 
The “thief in the night” is a proverb for unexpected events 
(i bhesr vane) 2) Pet. dij mo; Rey. i. 3, xvii 15)x Comp. the 
changes of metaphor in the parallel passage Mt. xxiv. 40-44. 


adyKev. ‘* Left his house” (RV.). AV. makes no distinction between 
addjKxev here and elacey in Mt. xxiv. 43, rendering both ‘“‘suffered.” But 
the RV. elsewhere renders dpinuu by ‘‘suffer” (viii, 51, xviii. 16); and 
dgjxev here cannot mean that he west owt of the house, for ‘‘he would have 
kept awake” implies that he remained in it. If the distinction between elacev 
and ddjxev is to be marked, the latter might be translated ‘‘allowed,” a 
word which the Revisers nowhere use, except in the margin of Mk. iv. 29. 


StopuxOqvar. “To be dug through,” the walls being made of 
mud. Wic. has “to be myned” here and “to be undermynyde” 
in Mt. for perfodiri of Vulg. Comp. duprfev ev oxdrer oikias 
(Job xxiv. 16); cay d¢ &v 7d Siopdypare eipeOy 6 KA€wrys (Exod. 
XXll. 2); ovd« év Suopvypaew evpov ators (Jer. li. 34). 

41. Eiwey 8€ 6 Métpos. This interruption should be compared 
with that in ix. 33. Each of them connects the discourse in which 
it appears with a definite incident. It illustrates Peter’s impulsive- 
ness and his taking the lead among the Twelve. Perhaps it was 
the magnificence of the promise in ver. 37 which specially moved 
him. He wants to know whether this high privilege is reserved 
for the Apostles. For mapaBodhy déyers see on v. 36, and for 
mpés=“‘in reference to” comp. xviii. 1; Rom. xviii. 21; Heb. i. 
7, 8, xi. 18, and possibly Lk. xix. 9 and xx. 19. Here mpos jas 
comes first with emphasis. 

i) kal mpds mdvtas.- Peter is sure that it has reference to the 
Twelve: the question is whether others are included. The em- 
ployment of parables would make him suppose that the multitude 
was being addressed, as in ver. 16; for Jesus did not commonly 
employ this kind of teaching with His permanent disciples. The 
spirit of the question resembles Jn. xxi. 21, and the answer 
resembles Jn. xxi. 22. In Mk. xiii. 37 we have what looks like 
a direct answer to the question here asked by S. Peter, “ What I 
say to you I say to all, Watch.” 


332 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XITI. 42-46, 


42. Tis dpa éotiv. Christ answers one question by another, 
which does not tell the questioner exactly what he wishes to know, 
but what it concerns him to know. It is enough that each who 
hears recognizes that he is an oixovduos with responsibilities. 
This was true in the highest sense of the Apostles. The oixovopos 
here is a dspensator (Vulg.) or villicus (d), a superior slave left in 
charge of the household and estate (see on xvi. 1). Other names 
are ordinarius, actor, procurator, the meanings of which seem to 
have varied at different periods and on different estates. Bekker, 
Gallus, Excursus ili. p. 204, Eng. tr. Hatch seems to assume 
that dispensator and villicus were terms of fixed and invariable 
meaning (Bibl. Grk. p. 62). With mortés comp. Num. xii. 7; 
1 Sam. xxii. 14; and with ppdvpos comp. xvi. 8; Gen. xli. 39. 
With @epametas (abstr. for concr.) comp. éyapy O& Bapaw kal 7H 
Geparreia airod (Gen. xlv. 16). Contrast Lk. ix. 11. 

o.topétprov. ‘A measured portion of food, ration.” These 
rations on Roman estates were served out daily, weekly, or 
monthly. The word occurs nowhere else, but ovroperpety is 
found (Gen. xlvii. 12, 14). Comp. Hor. £f. i. 14. 40. See 
instances in Wetst. 

44, ddnPds héyw Spiv. Here, as in ix. 27 and xxi. 3, Lk. has 
aAnOas where Mt. has auyv. See on x. 12. Comp. voprxoi (xi. 52) 
where Mt. has ypapparets (xxiii. 14), and his never using “Pa@Be. 


éml waco Tots Urapxovow avTov, See on viii. 3. This passage and 
Mt. xxiv. 47 seem to be the only instances in N.T. of this use of ézt. 
Elsewhere we have the gen. (ver. 42) or acc. (ver. 14), the former being 
more common (Mt. xxiv. 45, Xxv. 21, 23). 


45. Xpovifer 6 KUpids pou. Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4; Eccles. 
viii. 11. The “But and if” of AV. is simply “But if” (RV.); 
“and if” being “an if,” a double conditional, which was common 
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 

apéqtat. He begins to do this, but the arrival of his lord puts 
a stop to it: comp. v. 21, xiii. 25; Acts xi. 15. This oixovomos 
has a large familia of slaves under him. Perhaps he makes merry 
on what he ought to have given them. For zavdur«y as a verna- 
cular word for a female slave see Kennedy, Sources of V.T. Grk. 
p. 40. MeficxerOar is “to get drunk,” as distinct from peOvew 
“to be drunk” (Acts ii. 15). 


46. For the attraction in év &pg 7 ob yev boxes See on iii. 19, 


StxoTouyjcet. To be understood literally; for his having his 
portion with the unfaithful servants does not imply that he still 
lives: their portion is a violent death. For the word comp. Ex. 
xxix. 17; and for the punishment 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chron. xx. 3; 
Susannah 59; Amos i. 3 (LXX); Heb xi. 37. There is no 


, 


XII. 46-48.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 333 


example of the word being used of scourging or other severe treat- 
ment. There is a gradation of punishments: for vile misconduct 
and tyranny, death; for deliberate neglect, many stripes; for 
unintentional neglect, few stripes. Herodotus uses daréuvew: ii. 
139. 2, Vii. 39. 5. Comp. Suet. Caligula, xxvii.: multos honesti 
ordinis . . . medios serra dissecuit. 

TS pépos adtod peta Tov dmictwv Oyce, “Will appoint his 
portion with the unfaithful servants,” z.e. those guilty of a gross abuse 
of trust. ‘ Unbelievers” here has no point. Mt. has rav troxpi- 
tov, which means much the same as tev azictwv. This unfaithful 
steward expected to be able to play the part of a trusty agent ac 
the time of his lord’s arrival. For 76 pwépos we have 7 pépis in 
LXX, Is. xvii. 14; Jer. xill. 25. 

Here the parallel with Mt. xxiv. 43-51 ends. What follows is 
preserved by Lk. alone. 

47. éxeivos 8¢ 6 Sodd0s. “ Aut that servant,” ///e autem serous. 
Both AV. and RV. have “and.” The dé marks the contrast be- 
tween this transgressor and the oixovéyos, for wij érousdoas 7 Touneas 
mpos TO O¢Anua avrod is a less serious offence than the outrages 
which are described in vz. 45, 46, and one which a// servants may 
commit. 

Sapyoetat wéAdas. Understand zArjyas and comp. raéew éAzyas 
(Xen. Anad. v. 8.12). In N.T. dépw is never “I flay,” but always 
“‘T beat.” Comp. the vulgar “hide, giving a hiding to.” In LXX 
dépw does not occur, except as v./. in Lev. 1. 6; 2 Chron. xxix. 34, 
XXXV. 11; but in all three places the meaning is “flay,” and the 
true reading possibly éxdépw. Comp. Mic. ii 8, ili. 3. The 
doctrine of degrees of punishment hereafter is taught here still 
more plainly than in x. 12, 14. See Aug. De Civ. Dez, xxi. 16. 

There are two classes not mentioned here: 6 yvots xal zoujoas 
and (so far as that is possible) 6 pa yvovs cai roijyoas: see on 
Rom. ii. 14. 

48. 6 wh yvous. Seeing that he is a servant, he might have 
known his master’s will, had he been anxious to find it out. 
Nevertheless it is true that even he, who, in ignorance for which 
he is not responsible, commits déia wAnyév, has to suffer. The 
natural consequences of excess or transgression must follow. 


In the second half of the verse it is doubtful whether the two parallel state- 
ments mean exactly the same thing or not. Either, ‘‘ He who receives much is 
expected to exhibit much gratitude, and also readiness to make return; and is 
expected to do more than ¢hose who have received less”: or, ‘* He who receives 
a gift (é500y), must make a proportionate return: and he who receives a deposit 
(wapé@evro), must restore more than #e has recezved.” In the latter case the 
second half states the principle of the parables of the Talents and the Pounds. 
Note the impersonal plurals, and comp. ver. 20. 


49-58. The discourse seems to return to its starting-point 


334 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII. 48-51. 


(vv. 1-2). Christ’s teaching inevitably provokes opposition and a 
division between those who accept it and those who reject it. 
There is no parallel in Mt. or Mk. to wv. 49, 50. 

49. Nip. First foremphasis. “It is fire that I came to cast upon 
the earth.” The context seems to show that the fire of division 
and strife is meant: or, comparing ili. 16, we may understand the 
fire of holiness, which excites hostility and controversy. Lgnis” ille 
non est nativus terre (Beng.). His xpiwa éy@ eis Tov Koopov Tadrov 
7AOov (Jn. ix: 39: comp. lil. 19). 

kat Ti O€dw et 75y dvypoy; A passage of well-known difficulty, 
the translation of which remains doubtful. With this punctuation 
we may follow AV. and RV., “What will I, if it be (is) already 
kindled?” the meaning of which is not clear: comp. LXX of 
Josh. vii. 7. Or, with De Wette, Weiss, and many others, “ How 
I wish that it were already kindled!” which does rather serinus 
violence to the Greek. Or, with Origen, Meyer, etc., we may 
punctuate, kat ti @édw; ei 78y avyhOy. “ And what will I? Would 
that it were already kindled!” (Win. liii. 8. c, p. 562); which is 
rather abrupt and harsh: but comp. xix. 42 and Jn. xii. 27. Per- 
haps the first is best, meaning, ‘What more have I to desire, if 
it be already kindled.” The next verse does not imply that it is 
not kindled ; and the history of Christ’s ministry shows that it was 
kindled, although not to the full extent. Comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 21. 
Christ came to set the world on fire, and the conflagration had 
already begun. Mal. iii. 2. Comp. the constr. in Ecclus. xxiii. 14. 

50. Bdamticpa Sé €xouat BamticOAvar. Having used the meta- 
phor of fire, Christ now uses the metaphor of water. The one 
sets forth the result of His coming as it affects the world, the other 
as it affects Himself. The world is lit up with flames, and Christ 
is bathed in blood: Mk. x. 38. His passion is a flood in which 
He must be plunged. The metaphor is a common one in O.T. 
Ps. Ixix. 2, 3, 14, 15, xlil. 7, cxxiv. 4, 5, cxliv. 7; [ssi 
Jordan in flood and mountain torrents in spate would suggest such 
figures. See on ix, 22. 

Tas guvéxopat €ws STou TeheoOH. “ How am I oppressed, afflicted, 

until it be finished”: comp. villi. 37; Job iii. 24. The prospect 
of His sufferings was a perpetual Gethsemane: comp. Jn. xii. 27. 
While He longed to accomplish His Father’s will, possibly His 
human will craved a shortening of the waiting. Comp. ovvéxouat 
dé ék tov dvo (Phil. i. 23). With reAeoOG comp. reréAcoral, Jn. xix, 
28, 30. 
51. With vv. 51 and 53 comp. Mt. x. 34, 35. It was the belief 
of the Jews that the Messiah would at once introduce a reign of 
peace and prosperity. Jesus does not wish His followers to live 
in a fool’s paradise. He is no enthusiast making wild and delusive 
promises. In this world they must expect tribulation. 


XII. 61-55.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 335 


GAN 7. “Except, but.” Although the dA)’ has no accent, it seems to 
represent @XXo rather than dAAd: “I came not to send any other thing than 
division.” Or there may be a mixture of ovdév GAXNo F and oddéy AKO, adrAd: 
comp. 2 Cor. i. 13; Job vi. §; Ecclus. xxxvii. 12, xliv. 10. The expression 
is cmon in class. Grk.; and in Hdt. i. 49. 1, ix. 8. 3 the origin of it seems 
to be shown. See Stallbaum on Phado, 81 B; Win. li. 7. n. 5, p. 552. 


Stapepiopés, Comp. Mic. vii. 12; Ezek. xlviii. 29. Here only 
in N.T. Christ prepares them for disappointment. 

52. This verse has no parallel in Mt. x. Comp. Mic. vii. 6, 
on which what follows seems to be based. Godet says that there 
are five persons here and six in ver. 53. There are five in both 
cases, the mother and mother-in-law being the same person. Ex- 
cepting 2 Cor. v. 16, dwé tod vi is peculiar to Lk. (i. 48, v. 10, 
xxii. 18, 69; Acts xviii. 6). It is not rare in LXX (Gen. xlvi. 30; 
Ps. cxii. 2, Cxili. 26, cxx. 8, cxxiv. 2, cxxx. 3, Is. ix. 7, etc.). 

53. watnp éwi vid ... pymnp = @uyatépa . . . wevOepad emi 
Thy viudny. The change from the dat. to the acc. possibly indicates 
that the hostility is more intense in the case of the women. But 
LXX of Mic. vii. 6 more probably was the cause of the change. 
There we have éxi rj of the women, but vids ariyale rarépa of 
the men. In Mt. x. 35 we have xard ¢. gen. in all three cases. 
Lk. omits “A man’s foes shall be those of his own household.” 
Comp. Mal iv. 6. 


For vipdn=“‘ daughter-in-law” comp. Mt. x. 35; Gen. xi. 31, xxxviii. 
11; Lev. xvili, 15, etc.; Jos. dnt. v. 9. I. In Jn. iii, 29; Rey, xviii. 23, 
etc., it has the classical meaning of “‘ bride.” 


54-59. §Ignorance of the Signs of the Times. Christ once 
more addresses the multitude (ver. 15), apparently on the same 
occasion ; but it is by no means certain that Lk. means this. If 
so, this is a last solemn word by way of conclusion. The parallel 
passage Mt. xvi. 2, 3 is of very doubtful authority. It can hardly 
be derived from Lk., from which it differs almost entirely in word- 
ing, but perhaps comes from some independent tradition. 

54. “Eheyey 8¢ cai. The formula is suitable for introducing 
a final utterance of special point. Comp. v. 36, ix. 23, xvi. 1, 
xviii. I. For tots dxAors see On xi. 29. 

éxt Sucpav. In the West, and therefore from the Mediter- 
ranean Sea, which was a sign of rain (1 Kings xviii. 44). Robinson, 
Res. in Pal.i. P- 4295 D.B. art. “ Rain.” 

eibéws A¢yere G7. "OpBpos Epxerar. Both the eiéws and the pres. 
épxerat point to the confidence with which the announcement is 
made: “at once ye say, Rain is He Comp. épxerar apa, 
“OpBpos is “heavy rain, a thunder-shower”: Deut. xxxii. 2; Wisd. 
xvi. 16; Ecclus. xlix. 9; Jos. Anz. ii. 16. 3. 

ed ae vétov mvéovta. Understand idyre. One sees that it is 
a south wind by the objects which it moves. Lk. alone uses véros 


336 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII 55-59. 


of the south wind (Acts xxvii. 13, xxviii. 13). Elsewhere it means 
the South, as frequently in LXX (xi. 31, xiil. 29; Mt. xii. 42; Rev. 
XxI. 13; I Sam. XXVil. IO, XxX. I, 14, 275 2 Salll. XSlvegy eehmes 
vil. 25, 39 [13, 25], etc.). 

kavowv. ‘Scorching heat”: Mt. xx. 12; Jas. 1. 11; Is. xlix. 
10; Ecclus. xviii. 16, xliii. 22. Perhaps nowhere in N.T. does 
xavowy mean the burning east wind (Job xxvii. 21 ; Hos. xii. 1); 
but Jas. i. 11 is doubtful. 

56. droxpitat. Comp. Mt. xxiii. 13 ff. They professed to be 
unabl2 to interpret signs, such as the birth, preaching, and death 
of the Baptist, the preaching and miracles of Jesus. But their 
weather-wisdom proved that they could be intelligent enough 
where their worldly interests were concerned. 

Soxipdte. “To test.” In 76 tpdcwrov Tod otpavod and Katpdv 
we have almost the only words that are common to this passage 
and Mt. xvi. 2, 3. With tov xaipdv (tempus Messiz) comp. xix. 
44. 

57. Tl Sé kal dp éautav. ‘ But why even of yourselves, out 
of your own hearts and consciences,” without information from 
externals: comp. xxi. 30. Or possibly, “Of yourselves a/so,” as 
readily (<d@éws) as in the case of the weather. In either case af’ 
éavtav comes first for emphasis. For $€ kai see small print on ili. 9. 


58. as yap tmdyeis. yap sepe ponitur, ubi propositionem exctpit tractatio. 
Here év 77 66@ stands first with emphasis; no time is to be lost. And the 
Latinism dds épyactay, da operam, occurs here only. Wetst. quotes Hermo- 
genes, De Jnventione, iii. 5. 7. Excepting Eph. iv. 19, épyacla in N.T. is 
peculiar to Lk. (Acts xvi. 16, 19, xix. 24, 25). Hobart regards it as medical 
(p. 243), but it is very freq. in LXX. Note os = “when.” 

GanddaxGar. “To be quit of him” by coming to terms with him. 
Christ is perhaps taking the case of the two brothers (vv. 13, 14) as an illus- 
tration. The amd before the atro is omitted in B, but is certainly right 
Acts xix. 12, In class. Grk. both constructions are found, but the simple 
gen. is more common. Plat. Leg. 868 D; Xen. Jem. ii. 9. 6. 

katacvpy. Here only in N.T. and only once in LXX of ruining or 
demolishing : 8re éy® xatécupa rév ‘Hoad (Jer. xlix. 10). In Lat. detraho is 
used of dragging into court. For examples see Wetst, Mt. has wapadg 7g 
KplT]. 


mapaddcer TO mpdktopt Kat & mpdxtwp ce Badet eis pudaxhy 
Tradat te exactori et exactor mittat te in carcerem (Vulg.). For 
exactor Cod. Palat. (e) has the strange word pignerarius. No- 
where else in bibl. Grk. does zpdxtwp occur. At Athens the 
magistrate who imposed a fine gave notice to the zpdxropes, who 
entered it as due from the person fined ; but they did not enforce 
payment, if the fine was not paid. They merely kept the record. 
See D. of Ant.2 art. Practores. For zpdxropt Mt. has tanpérp. 

59. héyw oot. He addresses each individual. Mt. has épyy 
Aéyw cof (comp. ver. 44), and for Aerréy has Kodpdvrnv. The 


XII. 59-XIII. 1.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 337 


Nerdy (Aerrés=“ peeled, thin, small”) was half a guadrans and 
the eighth of an as: see on ver. 6, and comp. xxi. 2; Mk. xii. 42. 
Can the payment be made é& ¢gvAaxy? The parable gives no 
answer to this question. But it teaches that the proper time for 
payment is before judgment is given, and that release is impossible 
until full payment is made. The Talmud says: “The offences 
between man and God the Day of Atonement doth atone for. 
The offences between man and his neighbour the Day of Atone- 
ment atoneth for, only when he hath agreed with his neighbour.” 
There is no need to interpret the details in the parable, and make 
the dvtidunos mean the law of God, and the dpywy God Himself, 
and the xpiryjs the Son of God. 

XIII. 1-9. § Three Exhortations to Repentance, of which two 
(1-3; 4, 5) are based upon recent occurrences, while the third 
(6-9) is a parable. All three seem to have been omitted by 
Marcion in his mutilated Gospel ; but it is not easy to see what he 
disliked in them. They are peculiar to Lk., and both external and 
internal evidence guarantee their authenticity. Time and place 
are indefinite ; but the connexion with what precedes is expressly 
stated, and the scene must have been away from Jerusalem. 

1-8. The Moral of the Massacre of the Galilean Pilgrims, 
There is no record of this massacre in any other source. But the 
turbulent character of the Galilzans, and the severity of Pilate and 
other Roman governors, make the incident more than credible. 
Horrible massacres are recorded by Josephus (A 77. xvii. 9. 3, xviii. 3. I, 
xx. 5.3; B/. ii. 3. 3, 9.4, V. 1.5). The fact that such things were 
common accounts for the absence of other records ; and possibly not 
very many were slain. But such an outrage on Galilzans may have 
been one of the causes of the enmity between Herod and Pilate 
(xxiii. 12); and Keim conjectures that it was on this occasion 
that Barabbas was imprisoned. So also Lewin, Fast# Sacri, 1407. 


Others have conjectured the occasion to have been the insurrection under 
Judas of Galilee, the Gaulonite of Gamala (Avz#. xviii. 1. 1; B./. ii. 8. 1); but 
that was many years earlier (¢. A.D. 6), and these new-comers evidently report 
some recent event. On the other hand, the insurrection of the Samaritans 
(Ant. xviii. 4. 1) took place later than this, being the immediate cause of the 
recall of Pilate (A.D. 36). And what had Samaritan rebellion to do with the 
massacre of Galilzans? Comp. Philo’s summary of the enormities of Pilate: ras 
Swpodoxlas, Tas UBpers, Tas apmaryas, Tas alklas, Tas émnpelas, Tos dxplrovs Kat 
éraddjrous ddvous, THY dvjyutov Kal dpyadewrdrny wudtynta (Leg. ad Gaium, 
XXXVill. p. 1034 c, ed. Galen.). Again he says of him: fv yap rhy dicw 
dxapmhs Kal werd Tod avOddous dueldexros ; and, ola ofv éyxdrws Exwv Kal Bapd- 
pnus dvOpwros. See Lewin, 1493; Derenbourg, p. 198. 


1. Napjcav. Not, “there were present,” as all English Versions 
render, but, “there came,” vexerunt (Cod. Brix.). These inform- 
ants were not in the crowd which Jesus had been addressing, but 
brought the news afterwards. For this use of zapeivac comp. Acts 

22 


338 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIIL 1-3. 


x. 21; Mt. xxvi. §0; Jn. xi. 28: sometimes followed by zpos 
(Acts xii. 20; Gal. iv. 18, 20), or by eds (Col. i. 6): comp. Lk. 
xl. 7. In Mt. xxvi. 50; Acts x. 21, xii. 20, Vulg. has vemio; in 
Col. i. 6, pervento. Wetst. quotes a close parallel: aapyody tives 
amayyéAXovtes TodXOds THY “EAAjvev vewrepifev (Diod. Sic. xvii. 8). 

ev avT@ TO katp@. “At that very opportunity,” viz. just as He 
was speaking about the signs of the times. Possibly they had 
heard His last words, and thought that their story would be 
regarded as a sign: 7G xarp@ may look back to rév xaupdv (xii. 56: 
comp. i. 20, iv. 13). 

dv 76 atwa Mewdatos éutgev peta Tov Qucrav adtay. These pilgrims 
from Galilee had come up to Jerusalem for one of the Feasts, 
probably Tabernacles, and had come into collision with the 
Romans, no doubt through some fanatical act of rebellion. The 
merciless Zrocurator, himself in Jerusalem to keep order during 
the Feast, sent troops to attack them as they were sacrificing in 
the temple courts, and their blood was mingled with that of the 
slaughtered beasts. The expression, ‘‘ mingling blood with blood,” 
occurs elsewhere. Schoettgen quotes (of Israelites who were cir- 
cumcised in Egypt at the Passover): e¢ circumcisi sunt, et commixtus 
est sanguis paschatis cum sanguine circumcisionts (Hor. Hebr. p. 286). 
And again: David swore to Abishai, if he laid hands on Saul, “I 
will mingle thy blood with his blood” (zdzd. p. 287 ; Lightfoot, 
Hor. Hebr. ad loc.). 

2. We gather the object of these informants from Christ’s 
answer. They did not want Him as a Galilean to protest against 
Pilate’s cruelty, perhaps by heading another Galilean revolt. 
Rather, like Job’s friends, they wanted to establish the view that 
this calamity was a judgment upon the sufferers for exceptional 
wickedness (Job iv. 7, viii. 4, 20, xxii. 5; comp. Jn. ix. £, 2). 
Perhaps they had heard about the threatened “cutting asunder” 
(xii. 46), and thought that this was a case in point. There is no 
hint that they wished to entrap Him into strong language respect- 
ing Pilate. 


mapa wavtas T. TF. éyévovto. “* Showed themselves to be (comp. x. 36) 
sinners Jeyond all the Galilzans.” Comp. the use of wapd after comparatives, 
iii. 13. 


3. mdvres Spotws dodetcbe. The suffering of a whole nation is 
more likely to be produced by the sin of the nation than the suffer- 
ing of an individual by the sin of the individual. Lxempla sunt 
omnium tormenta paucorum. Jesus condemns neither the Galilzans 
nor Pilate, but warns all present of what must befall ‘em unless 
they free themselves from ¢hezr guilt. It is this approach of judg- 
ment upon His whole people which seems to fill Christ’s thought, 
and to oppress Him far more than the approach of His own suffer- 


XIII. 3-5.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 339 


ings. Grotius points out how exact the éuoiws is. Vide quam 
omnia congruerint. Paschatis enim die occisi sunt, magna pars in 
ipso templo pecudum ritu, ob eandam causam seditionis. But it is 
unlikely that this massacre took place at the Passover. The rest 
is right. IlodAol . . . mpd rév Oupdrwv érecov airoi Kat Tov“ EAAqon 
maou kat BapBapos ceBacpiov Bopov xaréorecav dion pov (BZ. /. 
VeliT.1 3). 

4, 4 The Moral of the Catastrophe at Siloam. This incident 
also is recorded here only. Jesus mentions it spontaneously as 
something fresh in their memories. ‘The tower” means the well- 
known tower. 

4, év 7 XiNwdp. The év perhaps indicates that it was surrounded 
by buildings. 

The Greek form of the name varies. ZiAwdu in LXX and Josephus; 
ZiAwds in Josephus ; ZAwd in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Note 
the article, which agrees with Jewish usage. In Jn. ix. 7 and in LXX the 
article occurs: comp. 7év ZapGva (Acts ix. 35). Few sites have been identi- 


fied with more certainty than Siloam: Conder, Handbk. of B. p. 3353 
Stanley, Sz. & Fal. pp. 180, 428; Tristram, Bzble Places, p. 162. 


Sperkéror, vil. 41, xl. 4; Mt. vi. 12, xviii. 24-34. The change 
of word from duaprwAoi (ver. 2) ought to be marked in translation, 
as by Wic. Rhem. and RV.; and also the change from dépoiws 
(ver. 3) to dcavrws (ver. 5), as by RV., although there is little 
change of meaning. If Ewald’s guess is correct, that these eighteen 
were working at the aqueducts made by Pilate, to pay for which he 
had used tov tepdv Onoavpdv (kaAcirar dé KopBavas), then dderérar 
may be used in allusion to this, implying that it was held that 
these workmen ought to pay back their wages into the treasury 
(Jos. B. /. ii. 9. 4). Jesus reminds the people that they are all 
sinners, and that all sinners are debtors to Divine justice (xii. 58). 

5. wetavoyonte.. The change of tense, if this be the right reading 
(SA DLMT UX), points to the need of zmedzate repentance, as distinct 
from a s¢a/e or continued attitude of repentance, peravofre (ver. 3). Vulg. 


expresses the difference by wzs¢ paenttentzam habueritis (ver. 3) and sé penz- 
tentiam non egeriizs (ver. 5). See on iii. 3 and v. 32. 


mdvtes GoatTws drodeicbe, The dcatrus is stronger than opotws, 
as “in the same manner” than “in like manner.” In both verses 
the MSS. are divided, but with a balance in ver. 3 for o“otws and 
for acavrws here. See Jos. B. /. vi. 5. 4, 7. 2, 8. 3, etc., for the 
similarity between the fate of these eighteen and that of the Jews 
at the fall of Jerusalem. 

6-9. §The Parable of the Barren Fig tree. It sets forth the 
longsuffering and the severity of God. His visitation of sin, how- 
ever long delayed in order to give opportunity of repentance, is 
sure. The fig tree, as in Mk. xi. 13, is the Jewish nation, but also 
any individual soul. Comp. Hos. ix. 10; Joel i. 7. It is arbitrary 

( 


340 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIII 6-9. 


to assert that the withering of the barren fig tree in Mt. xxi. and 
Mk. xi. is a transformation of this parable into a fact, or that the 
supposed fact has here been wisely turned into a parable. 

6. “Eheyev 5€ tadtHy Thy TapaBodknv. See ony. 36. The parable 
is a continuation of the warning, “‘ Except ye repent, ye shall all 
likewise perish.” 

Lucy... & TO dumekOv. attod. The main subject of the 
parable is placed first. Deut. xxii. 9 forbids the sowing of corn in 
vineyards, but to plant other fruit trees there was not a violation of 
this. At the present day fruit trees of various kinds are common 
in vineyards and in cornfields in Palestine (Stanley, Szz. & Pad. 
p. 421). “The fig tree ripeneth her green figs, and the vines are 
in blossom” (Cavz. ii. 13), perhaps implies this combination. 

7. tpia erm ad od Epxouar. Lit. “It is three years from the 
time when I continue coming”: comp. Thuc. i. 18. 1. A fig tree 
is said to attain maturity in three years, and a tree that remained 
fruitless for so long would not be likely to bear afterwards. See 
quotations in Wetst. The three years of Christ’s ministry cannot 
well be meant. The tree had been fruitless long before He began 
to preach, and it was not cut down until forty years after He ceased 
to do so. Cyril suggests Moses and Aaron, Joshua and the 
Judges, and the Prophets (Migne, vol. Ixxii. 753). Ambrose pro- 
poses the annunciations to Abraham, Moses, and Mary (Migne, 
vol. xv. 1743). Other triplets equally good might be easily de- 
vised ; but none are required. See Schanz, ad /oc. p. 369. 

iva Tl kal Ty yjv Katapyet; ‘Why, in addition to doing no 
good, does it sterilize the ground?” Utguid etiam terram occupat 
(Vulg.). Excepting here and Heb. ii. 14, the verb is used in N.T. 
only by S. Paul. He has it often, and in all four groups of his 
Epistles. In LXX only in Ezra (iv. 21, 23, v. 5, vi. 8). Latin 
Versions vary between occupat, evacuat, detinet, and intricat; 
English Versions between “occupy,” “keep barren,” “cumber,” 
and “hinder.” All the latter, excepting Rhem. and RV., miss the 
cat: it not only gives no fruit, it also renders good soil useless 
(apyov). 

8. xémpia. Here only in N.T. In Jer. xxv. 33 (xxxii. 19) and Ecclus. 
xxii. 2 this plur. occurs as here without the art. The curious reading xéguvor 


komplwy is found in D, and is supported by cofimum stercords or cophinam ster- 
corts of various Latin texts, d having gua/um stercorés. 

g. eis TO peddov. In the true text (NW BL 33, Boh. Aeth.) this expression 
precedes ei 62 wuyye, and we have an aposiopesis as in Acts xxiii. 9; Rom. 
ix. 22-24. Comp. Exod. xxxii. 32, where LXX supplies the apodosis. The 
ellipse of kah@s éxet occurs in class. Gk. It is perhaps possible to make els 7d 





1 Both dpyds (contr. from depyds) and dpyla are used of land that yields no 
return: Xen. Cyr. iii. 2. 19; Theophr. &. Phys. v. 9. 8. Comp. Rom. vi. 6, 
‘that the body as an instrument of sin may be rendered unproductive, inactive ” 
(karapy 07) ; also 1 Cor. xv. 26; 2 Cor. iii. 14; 2 Tim. i. 10, 


XIII. 9-11.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 341 


#é\Xov the apodosis: ‘‘if it bear fruit, we may postpone the queg.ion ; but if 
not,” etc. That els 7d wéA\ov may mean ‘‘again next year” is clear from 
Plutarch’s use of it for magistrates designate: eg. Tdv Ilelowva xaréorynoev 
Umaroy els Td wé\dov (Cw#s. xiv.) ; and perhaps it may mean ‘‘next year (Syr- 
Sin.),” the prep. being redundant, as in els ryv tplryv: comp. Jos. Ant. 
i. 11. 2. But that éros need not be understood, and that the prep. need not 
be redundant, is clear from 1 Tim. vi. 19, where els 7d wéAXov means ‘‘ against 
the time to come.” Only if the prep. be made redundant is the transfer of els 
70 wéddov to éxxoWers (A D) possible ; for ‘‘ agazzs¢t next year thou shalt cut it 
down” would here make no sense; but the external evidence is conclusive 
against the transfer. Comp. Acts xiii. 42; Hom. Od. xiv. 384. 

For the change from édy to el (kav . . . el dé wjyrye) comp. Acts v. 38, 39. 
It occurs in class. Grk.; and in most cases of this kind either conjunction 
might just as well have been used twice. Here it is possible that the first 
alternative is given as more problematical than the second. 


e€xxdwpers adtnv. “Thou shalt (have) it cut down,” shalt give 
the order for it. The vine-dresser will not even then cut it down 
without express command. He does not say éexxdyw. Comp. the 
Baptist’s warning, in which this same verb (éxxozrerat) is used 
(iii. 9). Trench gives a striking parallel in an Arabian recipe for 
curing a barren palm tree (Par. p. 359, roth ed.). 

10-17. § Healing of a Woman on the Sabbath from a Spirit of 
Infirmity. The details are manifest tokens of historical truth. 
The pharisaic pomposity of the ruler of the Synagogue, with his 
hard and fast rules about propriety ; Christ’s triumphant refutation 
of his objections ; and the delight of the people, who sympathize 
with the dictates of human nature against senseless restrictions ;— 
all this is plainly drawn from life. See Keim, Jes. of Vaz. iv. 
pp. 15, 162. Here, as in vi. 1-11, Christ claims no authority to 
abolish the sabbath. He restores it to its true meaning by rescu- 
ing it from traditions which violated it. See Hort, /udatstic 
Christianity, p. 32. 

10. This is the last mention of His teaching in a synagogue, 
and the only instance of His doing so in the latter part of His 
ministry. In many places where He was known the elders would 
not have allowed Him to preach, seeing that the hierarchy had 
become so hostile to Him. It is evident that rots ca8Bacw is 
sing. in meaning, as always in the Gospels. See on iv. 31, where, 
as here, we have the periphrastic imperfect. 

11. tvedpa éxouoa dolevetas. “Who had a spirit that caused 
infirmity.” See Sanday on Rom. viii. 15. Similarly a demon that 
caused dumbness is called a “dumb spirit” (xi. 14; Mk. 
ix. 17,25). Weiss would have it that this expression is the Evan- 
gelist’s own inference, and a wrong inference, from Fv édycev 6 
Zaravas (ver. 16), which probably means that Jesus knew her 
malady to be the consequence of her sinful life. Therefore Satan, 
who caused the sin, caused the malady. Weiss asserts that the 
laying on of hands never occurs in the case of demoniacs. And 


342 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIIL 11-15. 


he appeals to OepazevecGe (ver. 14), observing that exorcisms are 
not healings (L. /. ii. p. 53, Eng. tr. ii. p. 239). But we know too 
little to affirm that Jesus never laid His hands on demoniacs ; and 
both Gepazrevew (vill. 2; Mt. xvii. 16) and ido@ar (ix. 42) are used 
of healing them. Jesus generally cured ordinary diseases with 4 
touch or laying on of hands (iv. 40, v. 13, ix. 44, 54, xiv. 4, 
xxli. 51); but He sometimes healed such with a word (iv. 39, 
Vv. 24, Vi. 10, vii. 10). Although He commonly healed demoniacs 
with a word (iv. 35, 41, Vili. 29, 1x. 42), He may sometimes have 
touched them. And it should be noted that droAéAvoa, which 
implies that she has already been freed from the wvedua aoGevetas 
(comp. v. 20), precedes the laying on of hands. Therefore this 
act, like the laying hold of the demoniac boy (Mk. ix. 27), may 
have been added in order to complete the physical cure. There is 
nothing to show that the woman had come expecting to be healed 
by Jesus. For cuvkvmrouga see Ecclus. xii. 11, xix. 26. 


érn Séxa dunt. To suggest that this isa reminiscence of the eighteen on 
whom the tower fell, and that the twelve in viii. 43 is a reminiscence of the 
twelve in viii. 42, is hardly sober criticism. Do numbers never come a second 
time in real life? And he must be a poor inventor who is incapable of varying 
numbers. 

pi Suvapévy. As usual in N.T., we have 4 with the participle, although 
it refers to a matter of fact. Comp. i. 20; Acts ix. 9; and see Simcox, Zang. 
of N.T. p. 188. 


dvaktipa. eis TS twavtehés. “Wholly to lift up herself, to 
straighten herself properly.” Nearly all English Versions follow 
the Vulgate in taking «is 76 wavredés with py duvvapevy; nec omnino 
poterat, “could not in any wise, could not at all.” But it may go 
with dvaxvio., after which it is placed: “coulde not well loke up” 
(Cov.) ; honnte nicht wohl aufsehen (Luth.). Comp. ode eis 76 
mavtedés Svvarat (Heb. vii. 25), the only other passage in N.T. in 
which it occurs. Not in LXX. Josephus always has it next to 
the word to which it belongs (Avzé. i. 18. 5, iii. 11. 3, 12. I, Vi. 2. 3, 
vii. 13. 3). 

12. dwodd\ucat, “Thou hast been and remainest loosed” ; 
an unasked for cure. Comp. dé¢éwvrat (v. 20, vii. 48). 

18. rapaxpipa dévwpAd0y. See on v. 25. The verb occurs in 
N.T. only here, Acts xv. 16, and Heb. xii. 12; but is freq. in LXX. 
Hobart shows that it is used by medical writers of straightening 
abnormal or dislocated parts of the body (p. 22). 

14. droxpibecis 8€ 6 dpxtouvdywyos. Comp. viil. 41. No one 
had spoken to him, but he replies to what had been dine. He 
indirectly censures the act of Jesus by addressing the people as 
represented by the woman. 

15. ‘Yroxpitat. All who sympathize with this faultfinder are 
addressed, especially of dvrixeiuevor aird (ver. 17). There was 


XIII. 15-17.) JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 343 


hypocrisy in pretending to rebuke the people, when he was really 
censuring Jesus; and in professing to have a zeal for the Law, 
when his motive was azimus against the Healer. There was no 
evidence that people had come in order to be healed. And, if 
they had done so, would they have broken the Law? Cyril has a 
very animated attack on this man, whom he addresses as Backavias 
aydpdarodov, rebuking him for not seeing that Jesus had not broken 
even the letter of the Law in keeping its spirit (Migne, vol. 1xxii. 
770; Payne Smith, p. 454). See also Iren. iv. 8. 2. For 6 Kupuos 
see on v. 17 and vii. 13. 


The sing. saoxpird (D U X and some Versions) is an obvious correction. 
All English Versions prior to RV., even Wic. and Rhem., have the sing., in 
spite of Aypocritz in Vulg. 


Nuet tov Boty adtod. Christ appeals from his perverted inter- 
pretation of the law to a traditional and reasonable interpretation. 
But here the Talmud makes the characteristic reservation that, 
although water may be drawn for the animal, it must not be carried 
to the animal in a vessel (Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. App. xvii.). For 
other arguments used by Christ respecting the Sabbath, see vi. 3, 
5,9; Mk. ii. 27, 28; Jn. v.17. We may place them in an ascend- 
ing scale. Jewish tradition; charity and common sense; the 
Sabbath is a blessing, not a burden ; the Son of Man is Lord of 
it ; Sabbaths have never hindered the Father’s work, and must not 
hinder the Son’s. Such appeals would be varied to suit the 
occasion and the audience. 

16. An argument @ fortiori. If an animal, how much more a 
daughter of Abraham ; if one whom yourselves have bound for a 
few hours, how much more one whom Satan has bound for eighteen 
years. Comp. Job ii.; Acts x. 383 I Cor. Vo. 5a 2, COm aa 73 
1 Tim. i. 20: and with idod déxa Kai dxrd ery comp. idod recaepa- 
xovta érn (Deut. vili. 4); also Acts ii. 7, xiii, 11. 

ede. AuOfAvor. Not only she may be loosed, but she ought to 
be. The obligation was for the healing on the Sabbath. It was a 
marked fulfilment of the programme of the ministry as announced 
in the synagogue at Nazareth (iv. 18). There is no prescription 
against doing good ; and a religion which would honour God by 
forbidding virtue is self-condemned. 

17. \éyovtos aitod. “As He said” (RV.), not ‘When He had 
said” (AV. ). 

katyoxuvovto. “Were put to shame”: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 14, 
ix. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 16; in all which passages RV. is more accurate 
than AV. See also LXX of Is. xlv. 16. 

éml maou Tots evBdgors Tots yivopevors bw adtoo. “Over all the 
glorious things that were dezmg done by Him.” For rots evdéEos 
comp. Exod. xxxiv. 10 ; Deut. x. 21; Job v. 9, ix. 10, xxxiv. 243 


344 TUE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII 17-19. 


and for the pres. part. Mk. vi. 2. It refers to much more than the 
healing of this woman: gue gloriose fiebant ab eo (Vulg.). 


Some would put a full stop at air@, and make Kal mas 6 8xNos Exatper 
the introduction to what follows. But this robs the statement of all point. 
As a revolt of the popular conscience against the censoriousness of the hier- 
archy it is full of meaning. 


18-21. The Parables of the Mustard Seed and of the Leaven. 
The former is given by all three (Mt. xiii. 31, 32 ; Mk. iv. 30-32), 
the latter by two (Mt. xiii. 33). Thus Mt. as well as Lk. places 
them together. Both parables set forth the small beginning, 
gradual spread, and immense development of the Kingdom of God, 
the one from without, the other from within. Externally the King- 
dom will at last embrace all nations ; internally, it will transform 
the whole of human life. Often before this Jesus has mentioned 
the Kingdom of God (vi. 20, vii. 28, viii. 10, ix. 2, 27, 60, 62, x. 9, 
II, xi. 20): here He explains some of its characteristics. Mk. 
places the Mustard Seed immediately after the parables of the 
Sower and of the Seed growing secretly; Mt. after those of the 
Sower and of the Tares. But neither gives any note of connexion. 
Whereas the ovv of Lk. clearly connects this teaching with the 
preceding incident. 

18, 19. The Parable of the Mustard Seed. 

18. “Edeyev odv. It is a needlessly violent hypothesis to regard 
this as a fragment torn from its context, so that the ovr refers to 
something not recorded. On the other hand, it is a little forced 
to connect the ody with the enthusiasm of the multitude for His 
- teaching and miracles. This success is but an earnest of far 
greater triumphs. It is safer to refer it back to ver. 11. After the 
interruption caused by the hypocritical remonstrance He continued 
His teaching. With the double“ question which introduces the 
parable comp. tive apoudscare KUpiov, Kal Tive Spordpate apowwdoare 
airév ; (Is. xl. 18). The parable itself is more condensed in Lk. 
than in Mk. and Mt. 

19. kéxxw owdmews. It is the smallness of the seed in com- 
parison with the largeness of the growth that is the point. Whether 
other properties of mustard need be taken into account, is doubtful. 


It is not quite certain what plant is meant. Stanley is inclined to follow 
Royle and others in identifying it with the Sa/vadora Perszca, called in the 
East Aharde/, the very word used in the Syriac Version to translate olvam. 
It is said to grow round the lake of Gennesareth, and to attain the height of 
twenty-five feet in favourable circumstances. Its seeds are small and pungent, 


1 With this pair of Parables comp. the Garments and the Wine-skins 
(v. 36-39), the Rash Builder and the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), the Lost Sheep 
and the Lost Coin (xv. 3-10). Other pairs are not in immediate juxtaposition ; 
z.¢. the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5-8) and the Unjust Judge (xviii. 1-8). 


XIII. 19-21.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 345 


and are used as mustard (S77. & Pal. p. 427). Edersheim follows Tristram 
and others in contending for the Sizapzs nigra. ‘‘ Small as a mustard-seed ” 
was a Jewish proverb to indicate the least drop of blood, the least defilement, 
etc. Even in Europe the Szapzs sometimes reaches twelve feet (Z. & 7. 
i. p. 593; Wat. Hest. of B. p. 472). 

avOpwros. Comp. xx. 9. Lk. commonly writes dvOpwads Tis: x. 32, 
xii, 16, xiv. 16, xv. II, xvi. I, 19, xix. 12; comp. xviii. 2. 


eis Kimov éautoo. See Introd. §6.i.f. Not merely “the earth | 
(Mk.) or “‘his field” (Mt.), but “his own garden,” viz. Israel. 


éyéveto els Sévdpov. All three use ylvouat, Lk. alone adding els; bu 
péya before dévdpov is not genuine either here or in Mt. For ylvouar es 
comp. xx. 17; Acts iv. II, and v. 36, etc. The expression is freq. in LXX, 
and is also classical. 


TQ TeTELvd TOU ovpavod KaTecKyywoev, K.T.A. All three have this 
expression. See on ix. 58, and comp. troxatw atrod kateckyvovv 
Ta Onpia Ta aypia, Kal ev Tois KAddoLs aiTod KaT@KovY TA OpvEa TOD 
ovpavod (Dan. iv. 9, 18) and & tats rapapvacw aitod evdocevoay 
mavTa TH TeTELVa TOU ovpaved (Ezek. xxxl. 6: comp. xvii. 23), pass- 
ages which show that this was a recognized metaphor for a great 
empire giving protection to the nations,} 

20, 21. The Parable of the Leaven. Mt. xiii. 33; comp. Lk. 
AM, ¥; 

expuipey eis GNevpou odta tpia. The beginnings of the Kingdom 
were unseen, and Pagan ignorance of the nature of the Gospel 
was immense. But the leaven always conquers the dough. How- 
ever deep it may be buried it will work through the whole mass 
and change its nature into its own nature. Josephus says that a 
oarov was one and a half of a Roman modius (Ant. ix. 4. 5). It 
was a seah, or one third of an epkah ; which was an ordinary baking 
(Gen. xviii. 6). There is no more reason for finding a meaning for 
the three measures than for the three years (ver. 7). But Lange is 
inclined to follow Olshausen in interpreting the three measures as 
the three powers in human nature, body, soul, and spirit ; and he 
further suggests the material earth, the State, and the Church, 


In class. Gk. we generally have the plur. ddevpa (ddéw), It means 
6‘ wheaten meal” (Hdt. vii. 119. 2; Plat. Rep. ii. 372 B). 

€ws ov. Comp. Acts xxi. 26, In Lk. xxiv. 25 it is followed by the subj., 
as often. 


22-80. The Danger of being excluded from the Kingdom of 
God. The warning grows out of the question as to the number of 


1 Wetst. quotes from the Talmud, ‘‘ There was a stalk of mustard in Sichin 
from which sprang out three branches, of which one was broken off, and out of 
it they made a covering for a potter’s hut, and there were formed on it three 
cabs of mustard. Rabbi Simeon, son of Calaphta, said, A stalk of mustard was 
in my field into which I was wont to climb, as men are wont to climb into a 
fig tree.’ 


346 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XTIL 22-24. 


the saved, but no note is given of time or place. The introductory 
Sieropetero seems to point back to ix. 51, “ He was continuing His 
journey” (see on vi. 1). In any case it is part of the last je=rney- 
ings which ended in the Passion. For the substance of the 
discourse comp. Mt. vill. 13, 14, 22, 23, xix. 30; Mk. x. 37. 

22. kata wohers kai xépas. Once more we have an amphi- 
bolous phrase: see on ver. 11, x. 18, xi. 30, xii. 1, etc. Either, 
“He went on His way, teaching through cities and villages”; or, 
“He went on His way through cities and villages, teaching.” 

23. Etmev 8€ 1s ai7a. We have no means of knowing 
whether he was a disciple or not, or what his motive was. The 
question has always been an attractive one to certain minds 
(2 Esdras viii.). 

ei Shiyor oi cwlspevor. The questioner perhaps supposes that, 
at any rate, none but Jews will be saved. Comp. Acts ii. 47; 
1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 15. In all these passages the pres. part. 
should be marked; “those who are being saved, who are in the 
way of salvation.” 


For el introducing a dzrect interrogative comp. xxii. 49; Acts i. 6, xix, 2; 
Mi. xii. 10, etc. The constr. is not classical, and may be explained as 
arising from the omission of Oavpdtw, ywaoxew Ow, or the like. In 
German we might have, Ob Wenige selig werden? 


€imev mpds atro’s. Note the plur. As in xii. 15, 42, Jesus 
gives no answer to the question asked, but replies in a way that 
may benefit others as well as the interrogator far more than a 
direct answer would have done. 

24. *Aywvifecbe cicehOciv. “Keep on striving to enter,” or, 
“Strain every nerve.” Questio theoretica initio vertitur ad praxin 
(Beng.). Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Ecclus. iv. 28; Dan. 
vi. 14 (Theod.). In Mt. vii. 13 we have ciceAGare Sia zaps oTerys 
zvAys. But the context is quite different; and there it is an out- 
side gate, while here the door leads directly into the house, and is 
so narrow that only those who are thoroughly in earnest (Buacrat) 
can pass through it. Vulg. has per angustam portam in both 
places; but some Lat. texts have janwam or ostium here. 

LntAoovcw ecicehGeiv Kai ovK icxdcovow. ‘The futures are most 
important, whether we place a comma or a full stop after the second. 
Jesus does not say that there ave many who sérive in vain to enter, 
but that there wz// be many who wz// seek in vain to enter, after 
the time of salvation is past. Those who continue to strive now, 
succeed. The change from “strive” to “seek” must also be 
noted. Mere Cyreiv is very different from dywvierGa (1 Tim. 
Vi. 12). Comp. Jn. vii. 34. 

obx icxdcovow. “Will not have strength to” (vi. 48, xvi. 3) 
appropriate to the attempt to force a closed door. Not in 


XIII. 25-29.]| JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 347 


25. ad’ ob av éyep$9. Connect this closely with what precedes : 
* Shall not be able, when once the master of the house shall have 
risen up,” etc. With this arrangement a full stop is placed at rode 
éoré, and tdre begins a new sentence. 


Those who place a full stop at lcxvcovew differ much as to the apodosis 
of dd’ 05. Some make it begin at kal dptnoGe, more at xal droxp.Oels, and 
others at 7é7e. Of these three the first is the worst, making dpfyo@e= 
&ptecOe, and the last is the best (AV. RV.). 


26, 27. Comp. Mt. vii. 22, 23. When the attempt to force 
the door has failed, ye will begin to use this plea; but it will be 
cut short by the reply, Oi oida twas. The plea is almost gro- 
tesque in its insufficiency. To have known Christ after the flesh 
gives no claim to admission into the kingdom. 


anéotyte aw éuov mavtes épyara: adicias. A quotation from Ps. 
vi. 9, where we have mdvtes ol épyafduevoe Thy avoulay. Aristotle says that 
as dikaocvvn sums up the whole of virtue, so dévxia sums up the whole of 
vice (Eth. Nic. v. 1. 19). Contrast the quotation of the same text in Mt. 
vii. 23. Vulg. preserves one difference by having guz oferaminz there and 
operariz here; but ignores another in using zwzguztas for dvoula there and 
also for déuxla here. Similarly AV. and RV. have “‘iniquity” in both. 
With épydrar déixlas comp. ol épydrat Tis dvoulas (I Mac. ili. 6); Tov Kadov 
kal ceuvarv épydrnv (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 27); THY Wokeuxav (Cyr, iv. I. 4). 


28. “Exe €orat 6 kdauvOyds. There is no need to interpret 
éxet Of time, a use which is rare in class. Grk. and perhaps does 
not occur in N.T. Here the meaning is, “There in your ex- 
-Clusion, in your place of banishment.” Note the articles with 
kAavOpds and Bpvypds, “the weeping and the gnashing,” which are 
indeed such. Elsewhere in N.T. Bpvypzdés occurs only in Mt. 
(vill. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30). In LXX Prov. 
xix. 12; Ecclus. li. 3; also Aq. Ps. xxxvii. 9. These two verses 
(28, 29) occur in Mt. (viii. 11, 12) in a different connexion and 
with some difference of wording. 


*ABpaap kat “Ioadk Kat lakoB Kal wavtas 7. mpodytas. For all this 
Marcion seems to have substituted wdvtas rods duxalous, in order to avoid a 
direct reference to O.T. (Tert. dav. Marcion, iv. 30). The evidence is wholly 
against the conjecture that Marcion’s reading was the original one, which was 
altered in order to oppose him and agree with Mt. viii. 11. In Mt. rdvras 
Tods mpogijras is wanting. Some Lat. texts add dez to prophetas, and many 
add zxtrozre, or intrare, or introeuntes before 2 regno or im regnum. 


buds Sé ékBaddopuevous ef. “ But yourselves dezug cast forth 
without,” in the attempt to enter. They never do enter; but, as 
they would have entered, but for their misconduct, their exclusion 
is spoken of as “ casting out.” 

29. 7n§ouc. amd dvatohGy, x.t.A. A combination of Is. xlv. 6 
and xlix. 12: comp. lix. 19; Jer. iii. 18; Mal. i. rz. In Mt. viii. 
11, 12 the exclusion of the Jews and admission of the Gentiles is 


348 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII1. 29, 30. 


still more clearly expressed. This was the exact opposite of 
Jewish expectations. x mundo futuro mensam ingentem vobis 
sternam, quod gentes videbunt et pudefient (Schoettgen, Hor. Hed. 
p. 86); ze. the Gentiles were to be put to shame at the sight of 
the Jews in bliss. Here it is the Jews who gnash their teeth, while 
the Gentiles are in bliss. There is no roAXof with yéovcrv, so that 
the man’s curiosity remains unanswered ; but the context implies 
many rather than few. In Mt. zoAXoé is expressed; and this also 
seems to have been against Jewish expectations. Vidi filios 
canacult gui numero admodum pauci sunt (Schoettgen, p. 80). The 
Jews commonly spoke of the Messianic Kingdom as a banquet 
(xiv. 15; Rev. xix. 9). For the four quarters of the globe comp. 
Ps. cvil. 3; 1 Chron. ix. 24. Of the order in which they are given 
here Bengel remarks, Hoc fere ordine ad fidem conversi sunt popult. 
Mt. has only East and West. 


Even if 8pec@e (B'D X) were the right reading for 8yyoGe (AB*RT, 
lyre &) in ver. 28, there would be no need to make #fovew depend upon 
Srav. There should in any case be a full stop at éw. 


80. eiciv écxato. . . . eictv mparo.. There are some of each 
class who will be transferred to the other. Mt. xx. 16 we have 
€vovTa oi €oxarToL TpHTor Kal of mpHTou €oyator. From that passage 
coupled with Mt. xix. 30 = Mk. x. 31 we infer that this was a say- 
ing which Jesus uttered more than once. But here only is it 
introduced with «at idov, of which Lk. is so fond (i. 20, 31, 36, 
Vv. 12, Vil. 12, 37, etc.), and for which Mt. and Mk. have zodAot- 
d€._ The practical answer to the question in ver. 23 remains, 
‘““ Whatever be the number of those who are in the way of salva- 
tion, that which concerns you is, that you should without delay 
secure a place among them.” 

81-35. §The Message to Herod Antipas and the Lament over 
Jerusalem. From &v airy 77 dpa it is clear that the scene does 
not shift. It probably lies in Persea, but we cannot be certain. 
Both Perzea and Galilee were under the jurisdiction of Antipas. 
The Pharisees wanted to frighten Jesus into Judza, where He 
would be more in the power of the Sanhedrin; but that they did 
not invent this alarm about Antipas is clear from Christ’s reply. 
He would have denounced ¢he Pharisees for cunning and deceit, 
if they had brought Him a lying report; and it is very unnatural 
to make 77 dXwext tatty refer to the inventor of the report, or 
to the Pharisees as a body, or indeed to anyone but Herod. For 
the same reason we need not suppose that the Pharisees were in a 
plot with Herod. They reported his words without consulting 
him. Although the tetrarch wished to see Christ work a miracle, 
yet he probably regarded Him as a dangerous leader like the 
Baptist ; and that he should openly threaten to put Him to death, 


XIII. 31, 32.| JOURNEYINGS TOWAKDS JERUSALEM 349 


in order to induce Him to leave his province, is probable enough. 
The wish to disturb Jesus in His work, and to create a panic 
among His followers, would make the Pharisees report this threat, 
even it they had no hope of driving Him into the power of the 
hierarchy. The incident is remarkably parallel to the attempt of 
Amaziah, priest of the golden calf at Bethel, who first denounced 
the Prophet Amos to Jeroboam 1., and then tried to frighten 
Amos out of Israel into Judah, equally in vain (Amos vii. 10-17). 
See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 238. 

81. Oder ce droxtetvar. “Would fain kill Thee” (RV.). 
The “will” of all other English Versions is too like the simple 
future: comp. ix. 23. They do not say, “has determined to kill.” 
Possibly Jesus was in the very district in which John had been 
captured by Antipas; and this may have suggested the threat or 
the report of it, or both. 

82. cimate 1H GAGTeKt TadTn. As adurné is usually fem. (ix. 
58; Mt. viii. 20; Judg. i. 35; 1 Kings xxi. 10; and also in class. 
Grk.), we cannot infer that the fem. is here used in a contemptuous 
sense: but the masc. occurs Cant. ii. 15. Here, as usual, the 
fox is used as a symbol of craftiness, not of rapacity, as some 
maintain. Herod’s craftiness lay in his trying to get rid of an 
influential leader and a disquieting preacher of righteousness by a 
threat which he had not the courage to execute. He did not 
wish to bring upon himself a second time the odium of having 
slain a Prophet! In the Talmud the fox is called “the sliest of 
beasts.” See examples in Keim, /es. of /Vaz. iv. p. 344, and Wetst. 
Foxes of more than one species are very common in Palestine. 
Dis arte “Rox.” 

€xBdddrw Saudvia Kat idoers daotekG. As in the reply to the 
Baptist (vii. 22), Jesus gives the casting out of demons and the 
healing of the sick as signs of the Messiah’s works. In N.T. 
tacts is peculiar to Lk. (Acts iv. 22 30); in LXX Prov. iii. 8, 
iv. 22. 


The reading émreAXS (AR) is a correction to a more familiar verb, for 
dzrorehG occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only Jas. ii. 15; 1 Esdr. v. 73 (same 
v.t, as here) ; 2 Mac. xv. 39. It means, ‘‘I bring quite to an end.” 


oypepov Kal avpiov Kal TH tpitn. The three days have been 
interpreted to mean (1) three actual days, (2) the three years of 
the ministry, (3).a long time, (4) a short time, (5) a definite time. 


1 Cyril argues that, because we have ravry and not ékelvy with rj dAdex, 
the fox must be some one nearer the spot than Herod, viz. the Pharisees 
(Migne, vol. Ixxii. p. 582), Theophylact uses the same argument. But it is 

€ common use of odros for that which is condemned or despised, wu/pz istd ; 
or still more simply, ‘‘that fox of yours,” ze. whom you put forward and 
make use off Comp. oiros, v. 21, vii. 39, 49; Jn. vi. 42, vii. I 5, 36, 49, ix. 16, 
xii. 34. 


350 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIIZ. 32, 88. 


The last is probably right. The course of the Messiah is 
determined, and will not be abbreviated or changed because of 
the threats of a Herod.! For the same expression of three actual 
days comp. xix. 10, 11. See also Hos. vi. 2. 

tedevodpar, “I am perfected,” conswmmor (Vulg.). Comp. 
Heb. ii. 10. In both cases the idea is that of “ bringing Christ 
to the full moral perfection of His humanity, which carries with 
it the completeness of power and dignity” (Wsctt.). This is the 
only passage in N.T. outside the Epistle to the Hebrews in which 
this verb is used of Christ. In that Epistle it is thus used thrice 
(ii. 10, V. 9, vil. 28), and the idea which it represents is one of the 
main characteristics of the Epistle. It is doubtful whether there 
is here any reference to the special phrase reAcody tas xetpas, 
which is used in LXX of the installation of prvzes¢s in their office 
(Exod. xxix. 9, 29, 33, 35; Lev. vill. 33, xvi: 325 Numeaieegn 
comp. Lev. xxi. 10; Exod. xxviii. 37 (41); Jud. xvii. 5); although 
such a reference would be very appropriate on the approach of 
Christ’s sacrifice of Himself. See Wsctt. on Zhe zdea of tedeiwors 
and on Zhe tedeiwors of Christ (Hebrews, pp. 63-67). 


Tedevoduat is probably pass. and not mid.; pres. and not Attic fut, 
Ellicott, Hudsean Lectures, 1859, p. 264, 4th ed.; Keim, iv. p. 344. 


83. mhiv Set pe ojpepov Kk. aupiov kK. TH eXomevn TopeverOar, 
“ Howbeit” (see on vi. 24, 35) “it is ordained by Divine decree 
(see on iv. 43, ix. 22) that I go on My way hence, as Herod desires ; 
not, however, because you suggest it, but because My work at this 
time requires it.” The same verb is used in both places: zopevou 
evredbev and det pe mopeveoOar. But, as ééeAOeiv is not repeated, 
the repetition of zopevecbar (comp. topevfévres eimatre) may be 
accidental.2. The expression 77 éxouéevy for “the next day” 
occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only Acts xx. 15; 1 Chron. x. 8; 
2 Mac, xii. 39: comp. Acts xiii. 44, xxi. 26; 1 Mac. iv. 28. 


To understand ydép¢ instead of quépg and translate ‘‘I must go on My 
way to-day and to-morrow in the adjoining region also,” is against the con- 
text: TH éxouévy plainly = rp tpiry. 


obk evdéxeTat mpopytny amodéoOar éfw “lepovcadyp. “It cannot 
be allowed,” zon convenit, non fieri potest: 2 Mac. xi. 18; Plat. 
Rep. vi. 501 C. The saying is severely ironical, and that in two 
ways. (1) According to overwhelming precedent, Jerusalem is 


1 «<The number three seems here, as in the three years (ver. 7), to denote a 
period of time as complete in itself, with a beginning, middle, and end” 
(Andrews, Z. of our Lord, p. 396). Unzverst temporis requisite ad opus suum 
perfecto significatur (Cajetan). 

2 Maldonatus, whom Trench approves, makes the Avy signify, ** Although 
I must die on the third day, yet threats will not interfere with My continuing 
My work until then.” Rather, ‘‘ Although I must go to Jerusalem, yet it is 
not threats which send Me thither.” 


X1II. 83, 84.) JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 351 


the place in which a Prophet ought to be put to death. Que uros 
jus illud occidendi Prophetas quasi usu ceperat (Grotius). Jewish 
usage has determined that Jerusalem is the right place for such 
crimes. (2) When the conditions of place and time have been 
fulfilled, it is not Herod that will be the murderer. ‘“‘ You profes 
to be anxious for My safety, if I remain in Herod’s dominions, 
Do not be alarmed. I am in no danger here, nor from Him, 
But I must go to your capital: and it is there, and at your hands, 
that I shall die.” Jesus is not referring to the Sanhedrin aS 
having the exclusive vigi¢ to try a Prophet; nor does He mean 
that no Prophet had ever been slain outside Jerusalem. The 
Baptist had been murdered at Macheerus.! But such cases were 
exceptional. By long prescription it had been established that 
Jerusalem was the proper scene for these tragedies. 


mpodytyv. Any Prophet. To make it equivalent to rév rpog¢ijrny, and 
interpret it of Christ in particular, does violence to the Greek. 


84, 35. The Lament over Jerusalem. This lament is called 
forth by the thought of the previous verse. What sorrow that 
the Messiah should have to speak thus of the metropolis of His 
own people! The connexion is natural; all the more so if the 
Pharisees (ver. 31) ‘came from Jerusalem. But the connexion in 
Mt. xxiii. 37 is not less natural; and there Christ is at Jerusalem. 
To decide between the two arrangements is not easy: and to 
suppose that such words were spoken on two different occasions 
is rather a violent hypothesis; which, however, is adopted by 
Alford, Andrews, Ellicott, and Stier. The wording is almost 
identical in both places, especially in the remarkable turn from 
the third sing. (airyv) to the second sing. (cov), and thence to 
the second plur. (76<Ajocare). On the whole it seems to be more 
probable that the lament was uttered when Jerusalem was before 
His eyes, than when it and its inhabitants were far away. For 
the repetition of the name see on x. 41. 

84. ¥ dmoxteivouca tos mpopytas. “The slayer of Prophets”; 
pres. part. This is her abiding character; she is a murderess, 
laniena prophetarum, rpopytoxtévos. Comp. Acts vii. 52. 

ALGoBododica Tods darectahpevous mpds attyv. As the wicked 
husbandmen did (Mt. xxi. 35): comp. Heb. xii. 20. This is a 
repetition in a more definite form of the preceding clause. It is 
arbitrary to make rovs droora\mévous refer to the Apostles and 
other messengers of the Gospel: they are the same class as rovs 
mpopytas, See Paschasius Radbertus on Mt. xxiii. 37, Migne, cxx. 
7809. 

1 But perhaps even in the case of the Baptist the hierarchy at Jerusalem 


had a hand: He was ‘‘delivered up” by some party. Comp. mapadoéjvas 
(Mk. i. 14), mapedd0y (Mt. iv. 12). 


352 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XIITI. 84, 35. 


tocdkis HOAnoa emuouvdgar ta tékva cou. These words, which 
are found in both Mt. and Lk., are evidence from the Synoptists 
themselves respecting much work of Christ in Jerusalem which 
they do not record. As S. John tells us, He ministered there at 
other times than just before His Passion. The context forbids 
us from taking ra réxva cov in any other sense than the inhabitants 
of Jerusalem. (Comp. xix. 44, and see Neander, Z. /. C. § 110, 
Eng. tr. p. 165.) This is fully admitted by Strauss, if the words 
were really spoken by Christ.1 He suggests therefore that they 
come from an apocryphal source, and probablysthe same from 
which he supposes xi. 49-51 to have been taken. In this he has 
been followed by Loman and Pfleiderer (see Hahn, ii. p. 255). But, 
like x. 22, this verse—;so strongly confirming the Johannean 
tradition—is far too well attested to be got rid of by any sup- 
positions. The pronouns in éemovydgar mean “together to one 
place—to Myself.” Comp. Ps. ci. 23 ?, cv. 47. 

dv Tpdtrov Opyis Thy éauTAs voooidy. ‘Even as a hen her own 
brood.” For 6v tpérov comp. Exod. ii. 14. Like “fowl” in 
English, épvis is used specially of domesticated hens (Xen. Azad. » 
iv. 5. 25; Aesch. Zum. 866). Mt. has 7a voooia awrqs, “her 
chickens.” ‘This similitude is not found in O.T., but is frequent 
in Rabbinical literature. Schoettgen, pp. 207-210. Comp. 7a 
Ketvou TEKV éxwv 70 wrepols THlw Tade (Eur. Heracl. 10). Jerome 
quotes Deut. xxxii. 11 in illustration: “As an eagle that stirreth 
up her nest, that fluttereth over her young, He spread abroad His 
wings, He took them, He bare them on His pinions.” With tao 
tas mrépuyas comp. Ruth ii. 12; Is. xxxi. 5; Mal. iv. 2; Ps. xvii. 8, 
xxxvi. 8, lvil. 2, Ixi. 5, Lxii. 8. 

kal ouk HMeAnoate. In tragic contrast with zogaks 7OAynoa: 
comp. Jn. i. 5, 10, II. 

35. dpterar Spiv 6 otkos Suadv. Neither here (DEGHMU 
X A, Latt. Boh. Syr.) nor in Mt. xxiii. 38, where it is better 
attested, is €pyuos more than a gloss. Comp. 6m els épnuwow 
éorat 6 oiKkos ovros (Jer. xxil. 5), and éyxataAeAoura Tov olkdy pov, 
apjKka tiv KAypovopiay pov (Jer. xii. 7). “Is being left to you” 
means “ You have it entirely to yourselves to possess and protect ; 
for God no longer dwells in it and protects it.” Comp. ape@joerat 
(xvii. 34, 35). By “your house” is meant the home of ra téxva 
cov, the city of Jerusalem. Note the repetition tpiv ... tuar. 
Syr-Sin. here has, “ Your house is forsaken” ; in Mt. it is defective. 

héyw Sé Sutv oF ph iynté pe. With great solemnity and with 
strong assurance. Comp. Jn. vii. 34, viii. 21. 

€ws eimnte. Their seeing Him is dependent upon their repent- 

1 Hier sind alle Ausfliichte vergebens, und man muss bekennen: sind diess 


wirkliche Worte Jesu, so muss er ofter und linger, als es den synoptischen 
Berichten nach scheint, in Jerusalem thatig gewesen sein (L. J. 1864, p. 249), 


XIII. 35.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 353 


ance; and this is left uncertain; for the 7fe dre or av Héy Gre 
after €ws (AD, Vulg.) is not genuine. There are three inter- 
pretations of the point of time indicated by this declaration. (1) 
The cries of the multitude on Palm Sunday (xix. 38; Mt. xxi. 9; 
Mk. xi. 9). But this is quite inadequate. Christ would not have 
declared with this impressive solemnity the fact that He would not 
enter Jerusalem for some weeks, or possibly months. (2) Zhe 
Second Advent. But where are we told that the unbelieving Jews 
will welcome the returning Christ with hymns of praise? (3) Zze 
conversion of the Jews throughout all time. This last no doubt 
is right. The quotation EiAoynpévos, x.7.X., is verbatim from LXX 
of Ps. cxviii. 26, and é& évduat. Kvpiov means as the representative 
of Jehovah. Converted Israel will thus welcome the spiritual 
presence of the Messiah. 


XIV, 1-XVII. 10. The Second Period of the Journey. 


This forms a new division of the section which has been 
styled “‘the Journeyings towards Jerusalem”: see on ix. 51. The 
first portion of it (xiv. 1-24) may be thus subdivided. A 
Sabbath-meal in the House of a Pharisee, including the Healing 
of a Dropsical Man on the Sabbath (1-6), a Discourse about 
taking the lowest seats (7-11) and inviting Lowly Guests (12-14), 
and the Parable of the Great Supper (15-24). The whole is 
peculiar to Lk., and probably comes from some source unknown 
to Mt. and Mk, 


1-24. § A Sabbath-meal in the House of a Pharisee. Time and 
place are quite undetermined. The chief men among the Pharisees 
no doubt lived mostly at Jerusalem. Beyond that we have no clue. 

1-6. The Cure of a Dropsical Man at the Sabbath-meal. 
The cure of the man with the withered hand (vi. 6-11; Mt. 
xii. 9-14; Mk. iii. 1-6) should be compared but not identified. 
Although Lk. records both cures, with very important differences 
of detail, Strauss and Keim maintain that this is a mere doublet 
of the other, and reject both. The style of the opening words 
indicates an Aramaic source. 

Of the seven miracles of mercy on the sabbath, Lk. records four: the 
Withered Hand (vi. 6), the Woman bowed down eighteen years (xiii. 14), 
Simon’s wife’s mother (iv. 38) and this. The others are: the Paralytic at 
Bethesda (Jn. v. 10), the Man born blind (Jn. ix. 14), the Demoniac at 
Capernaum (Mk. i. 21). 


1 Not only do SBK LM RX, Syr. Boh. Arm. and some Lat. texts here 
omit #ée: dre, but no authorities insert the words Mt. xxiii. 39, which adds to 
the weight of the evidence against them here. 


23 


354 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIv. 1-8. 


1, Kat éyévero év 7@ éhOeiv adtév. ‘* And it came to pass after 
He had entered” (aor.), not “‘as He entered” (AV.) nor “when 
He entered” (RV.): cum intrasset or introisset (some MSS. of 
Vulg.) rather than cum intraret (Vulg.). See on iii. 21 and the 
note at the end of ch. 1. p. 45. 

Tos TOV apydvTwy Tov Papicatwy. Of one of the chief men of 
the Pharisees.” We have no knowledge of official rulers of the 
Pharisees ; but of course they had their leading men. That the 
invitation of a leading Pharisee was accepted (ver. 12) after what 
is recorded xi. 37-54 might seem surprising, especially as Jesus 
knew the minds of those whom He was to meet (ver. 3). But 
there was still the possibility of influencing some of them for good. 
We know of no case in which Jesus refused an invitation. 

caBBdrw payetv dptév. Sabbath banqueting was common, and 
became proverbial for luxury. Odserva diem sabbati, non Judaicis 
delicits; and Hodternus dies sabbati est, hunc in presenti tempore 
otio quodam corporaliter languido et filuxo et luxurioso celebrant 
Judei (Aug.). See Wetst. ad Joc. and Polano, Zhe Talmud ; 
Selections translated from the original, p. 259. 

kal adtol joav maparnpovpevor aitéy. Lk.’s favourite construc- 
tion. See on v. 14 and vi. 20. The xaé introduces the apodosis 
of éyévero: “it came to pass .. . that the Pharisees themselves 
were persistently watching Him.” For raparnpeic Oar of interested 
and sinister espionage see on vi. 7. Excepting Mk. iii. 2 and Gal. 
iv. 10, the verb occurs only in Lk. (xx. 20; Acts ix. 24). 

The translation ‘‘ were there, watching” is erroneous: jjcav waparnpov- 
wevot is the periphrastic imperf. It is also an error to carry on the con- 
struction of éyévero beyond ver. I: vv. I and 2 are quite independent state- 
ments, 

2. kat i80d d/Opwrds tis. We are left in doubt whether the 
man was placed there as a trap, which the absence of ydép does 
not disprove, or was there by accident, or had come in the hope 
of being healed. The last is probable: but the tov seems to 
imply that his presence was unexpected by the company, and 
perhaps by the host. He was probably not an invited guest, as 
améAvoev (ver. 4) appears to show. But in an Eastern house he 
would have no difficulty in obtaining admission (Tristram, Zastern 
Customs, pp. 36, 81): and, if he hoped to be healed, he would 
take care to appear ¢umpooGev airod. Note the rs vv. 2, 19, 20. 

SSpwmxds. Not elsewhere in bibl. Grk., but freq. in medical 
writers. The disease seems to be indicated as a curse Num. 
v. 21, 22; comp. Ps. cix. 18. Comp. Hor. Carm. ii. 2. 13. 

8. dmoxpileis . . . mpds ToUs vopiKots Kal apicaious. He 
answered their thoughts implied in joav maparnpovpevor, This 
watching had now a definite object owing to the presence of the 
dropsical man. Comp. v. 22, vii. 4o. The vopsxot (see on 


XIV.3-5.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 355 


vii. 30) and @apicator are put as one class, and are a more 
definite description of the atro¢ in ver. 1.. Note the Hebraistic 
elev héyor. 
eparedcar 4 08; Comp. dyaforoujoa 7 KaKxoroijoar (vi. 9) ; 
e€ oipavod 7} é€ avOpdrwv (xx. 4). The dilemma, if they had 
planned one against Him, is turned against themselves. These 
lawyers were bound to be able to answer such a question: and if 
rigorist Pharisees made no objection when consulted beforehand, 
they could not protest afterwards. They take refuge in silence ; 
not in order to provoke Him to heal, but because they did not 
know what to say. They did not wish to say that healing on tne 
sabbath was allowable, and they did not dare to say that it was 
not. For jovxdéfo in this sense comp. Acts xi. 18, xxi. 14; Job 
xxxil. 6; Neh: v. 8. ; 
The el before éeo7s (A, Syrr. Arm.) probably comes from Mt. xii. 10 
(om. SBDL 59, Latt. divided). If it is genuine, comp. xiii. 23. Most of 


the authorities which insert ef have Oepazrevewv for Oepamredoat (also from Mt. 
xii, 10) and omit # ov. 


4, émdaBdpevos idcato, That the laying hold of him is to be 
regarded as the means of the cure is not certain. The touching 
in order to heal is more often expressed by amrecOat (v. 13, 
xxii. 51; Mk. i. 41, vil. 33, Vill. 22; Mt. viii. 3, 15, xvii. 7, xx. 34) 
or by émiriévar tas xEélpas (iv. 40, xill. 13; Mk. vi. 5, viii. 23, 25, 
etc.). Both idéo@a: (see small print on v. 17) and émaAaBéobar 
(ix. 47, XX. 20, 26, xxili. 26, etc.) are freq. in Lk. Christ read the 
man’s faith, as He read the hostility of the Pharisees, and responded 
to it. 

dmé\uoev. This probably means something more than the 
letting go after the ém:AaBdperos, viz. “dismissed him” from the 
company, to prevent interference with him. 

5. Tivos tuav uids 4 Bods. The emphatic word is tuav. ‘ How 
do you act, when your interests are concerned? When your son, 
or even your ox, falls into a well?”! Palestine abounds in un- 
protected cisterns, wells and pits. Wetst. quotes from the Mishna, 
Si in puteum bos aut asinus ... filius aut filia. The argument 
is that what the Pharisees allowed themselves for their own benefit 
must be allowed to Christ for the benefit of others. Their sabbath 
help had an element of selfishness ; His had none. 

The reading vos 7 Bods probably comes from xiii. 15. The correction was 
doubly tempting: 1. because vids seemed rather to spoil the @ fortéoré argu- 
ment; 2. because dvos is more naturally coupled with Bods. Comp. Deut. 
xxii. 4. The reading mpoSarov (D) for vids has a similar origin, while 8is is a 
conjecture as the supposed original of both vids and dvos, The evidence is 


1 There is possibly a reference to the wording of the fourth commandment, 
fn which son stands first among the rational creatures possessed, and ox first 
among the irrational (Deut. v. 14). 


356 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 5-7. 


thus divided: ds ABEGHMSUVTIAL ete., efg Syrr., Cyr-Alex.— 
bvos SK LXII, abci Syr-Sin. Vulg. Arm. Aeth. See WH. ii. App. p. 62; 
Sanday, 4Zp. to Grk. T. p. 120. The dmoxpiOels before mpds avrovs elmer 
(s A, Vulg.) is probably an insertion. 

Note the Hebraistic construction instead of rls buay od ulds, wr. 0K 
evbéws dvacrdce airov 3 


6. otk toxucav avraroKpOfjvot. Stronger than jovxacay (ver. 
3): “They had no power to reply.” Lk. is fond of noting that 
people are silenced or keep silence (xx. 26; Acts xi. 18, xii. 17, 
xv. 12, xxii, 2). For the compound verb comp. Rom. ix. 20; 
Judg. v. 29; Job xvi. 8, xxxii. 12. 

7-11. Discourse on choosing the Lowest Seats at Entertain- 
ments. We may suppose that the healing of the dropsical man 
preceded the meal. This now begins; and, as they settle round 
the tables, there is a manceuvring on the part of some of the 
guests to secure the best places. To suggest a comparison 
between healing the dropsy and dealing with duplicem animi 
hydropem, superbie tumorem et pecuniz sitim is almost as fanciful 
as supposing that “falling into a well” is meant to refer to the 
dropsy. ‘The latter supposition (Aug. Bede) still finds favour. 

7. “Edeyev 8€ . . . mapaBodyy. Comp. v. 36, xili. 6, xviii. I. 
The “parable” is not in the form of a narrative, but in that of 
advice, which is thus called because it is to be understood meta- 
phorically. Christ is not giving counsels of worldly wisdom or of 
good manners, but teaching a lesson of humility. Every one 
before God ought to feel that the lowest place is the proper place 
for him. There is no need to suppose that this was originally a 
parable in the more usual sense, and that Lk. has turned it into an 
exhortation ; still less that ver. 7 is a fictitious introduction to a 
saying of which the historical connexion had been lost. 


dréxov. Sc. ray votv: comp. Acts iii. 5 ; I Tim. iv. 16; Ecclus, xxxi. 2. 
He directed His attention to this: not the same as its attracting or catching 
His attention. 


Tas mpwtox\tcias. In the mixture of Jewish, Roman, Greek, 
and Persian customs which prevailed in Palestine at this time, we 
cannot be sure which were the most honourable places at table. 
Josephus (Azz. xv. 2. 4) throws no light. But the Talmud says 
that, on a couch holding three, the middle place is for the 
worthiest, the left for the second, and the right for the third 
(Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. pp. 207, 494). Among the Greeks it was 
usual for each couch to have only two persons (Plat. Sym. 175 A, 
C), but both Greeks and Romans sometimes had as many as four 
on one couch. D. of Grk. and Rom. Ant. artt. Cena, Symposium, 
Triclinium ; Bekker, Charicles, Sc. vi. Exc. i.; Gallus, Se. ix. Exe. 
i. ii, Comp. Lk. xx. 46; Mt. xxiii. 6; Mk. xii. 39. 


XIV. 7-10.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 357 


éfeh¢yovro. ‘They were choosing out for themselves ; e/igebant 
(bcdefff,) rather than e/igerent (Vulg.).” The same thing seems 
to have taken place at the Last Supper (xxii. 24), and the washing 
of the disciples’ feet may have been intended as a rebuke for this. 

8. eis ydpous. Probably sing. in meaning; “to a wedding- 
feast”: see on xli. 36. The meal at which this was said was an 
ordinary one, as is shown by ¢ayeiv aproy (ver. 1), the common 
Hebrew phrase for a meal (ver. 15; Mt. xv. 2; Mk. iii. 20; Gen. 
XXXVil. 25, xliil. 16; Exod. ii. 20, etc.). Jesus singles out a 
marriage, not perhaps because such a feast is a better type of the 
Kingdom of God, but because on such occasions there is more 
formality, and notice must be taken of the rank of the guests. 

katakhwOjs. Peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (vii. 36, ix. 14, xxiv. 30): 
four times in LXX, and common in class. Grk. 

9. 6 cé kal adréy kadéoas. It is misplaced ingenuity to render, 
“thee thyself also,” dich auch selbst. “Thee and him,” ée e¢ tlum 
(Vulg.), is right. His inviting both gave him the right to arrange 
both guests as he pleased. Contrast ii. 35. 


épet. For the change from subjunct. to fut. indic, comp. xii. 58 See 
also épet after tva, ver. 10. 


Aés tovTw téTov . . . Tov Ecxatoy témov, Here AV. is inferior 
to all previous versions. Vulg. has /ocum in both places. Luth. 
omits in both. Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. have “rowme” in both: 
Wic. and Rhem. “place” in both. “The lowest voom” means 
“the lowest Z/ace” ; but in that case “ give this man room” should 
precede. Otherwise “lowest room” will seem to mean the bottom 
chamber. 


“*Thou hast set my feet in a large room” (Ps, xxxi. 8), #.¢. in abundant space 
(Ps. xvili. 19). Bishop Hall calls Pope Pius 11. ‘‘as learned as hath sat in 
that roome this thousand yeeres” (Letters, Dec. ii. Ep. 3). Davies, Bzbze 
English, p. 152. Comp. Ter. Heaut. ili. 3. 25. Sy. /ube hunc abire hine 
aliguo. Cl. Quo ego hine abeam? Sy. Quo? quo libet: da iillis locum. Abs 
deambulatum, Cl. Deambulatum? Quo? Sy. Vah, quasi desit locus, 


Gp§ . . Katéxew. The apf marks the contrast between the 
brief self-assumed promotion and the permanent merited humilia- 
tion. Comp. Prov. xxv. 5, 7, which Christ seemed to have had in 
His mind. The displaced guest goes from top to bottom, because 
the intermediate places have meanwhile been filled. 

10. iva . . . épet cor. Perhaps iva is here used éxBartxas, of 
the vesu/¢ rather than of the puzfose: “so that he will say to thee.” 
But if the idea of purpose be retained, it is Christ’s purpose in 
giving the advice, not the purpose with which the hearer is to 
adopt the advice. There is no recommendation of “the pride 
that apes humility,” going to a low place iz order #o be promoted. 
See small print on xx. 10. 


358 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 10-12 


The fut. indic. after fva is common in late Greek: xx. 10; Mk. xv. 20; 
Jn. vii. 3, xvii. 2; Acts xxi. 24; Gal. ii. 4, etc. Win. xli. b. 1, p. 360; 
Simcox, Zang. of V.T. p. 109; Burton, § 199. 

mpocavaByOi avdtepov. Perhaps ‘* Come up higher,” ¢.¢. to where the 
host is sitting: accede (acf ff,iqr) rather than ascende (Vulg.). Comp. 
dvdBawwe mpos je (Prov. xxv. 7). The verb is classical and frequent in LXX, 
esp. in Joshua of geographical description (xi. 17, xv. 3, 6, 7, xvili. 12, xix. 
II, 12; Exod. xix. 23, etc.) The adv. occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only 
Heb. x. 8; comp. avwrepos (Neh. iii. 25), dvwraros (Tobit viii. 3), dowrepos 
(Acts xvi. 24; Heb. vi. 19), xatwrepos (Eph. iv. 9). 


ay 


évémuoy mdévtwy. Both words are characteristic: see on i. 15 
and vi. 30. The wdvrtwy is unquestionably to be retained 
(8A BLX 1, 33 69, Syrr. Boh. Aeth.). 

1l. mas 6 Gav éautdv. One of our Lord’s repeated utterances : 
xvill. 14; Mt. xxiii. 12. In all three places AV. spoils the anti- 
thesis by varying the translation of tazewéw, “abase,” “humble.” 
The saying here guards against the supposition that Christ is 
giving mere prudential rules of conduct or of good taste. Humility 
is the passport to promotion in the Kingdom of God. Comp. for 
the first half x. 15 ; and for the second half Jas. iv. 10; 1 Pet. v. 6. 
Note that while Lk. in both places has 74s with the participle (see 
on i. 66), Mt. has dovus. 

12-14. The Duty of inviting Lowly Guests. The previous 
discourse was addressed to the guests (ver. 7): this is addressed 
to the host. It is a return for his hospitality. We cannot be 
sure that all the other guests were of the upper classes, and that 
this moved Jesus to utter a warning. Some of His disciples may 
have been with Him, and they were not weaithy. Still less may 
we assert that, if all the other guests were of the upper classes, this 
was wrong. All depends upon whether the motive for hospitality 
was selfish. But it is wrong to omit benevolence to the poor, in 
whose case the selfish motive is excluded. As before, we have a 
parable in a hortatory form ; for Jesus is not merely giving rules 
for the exercise of social hospitality. 

12. “Edeyev 8€ kal TH KekAyKoTt adtéy. “But He was saying 
to him also that had bidden Him”; gui invitaverat eum (df), 
invitanti eum (8), invitatori (ab c ff,ilqr): convivatori suo benigne 
rependens, mvevpartixa avti capxixav (Grotius). For dépictov see on 
Kea 

py ddve. Pres. imperat. ‘Do not haditually call.” It is the 
exclusive invitation of rich neighbours, etc., that is forbidden. 


As distinct from xaeiv, gwvetv would specially apply to invitation by word 
of mouth: and the use of ¢wvetv for invitations is very rare. Neither Vulg. 
nor any English Version before RV. distinguishes between pwvet here and 
kddet, ver. 13, although in wz. 7, 8, 12 «adel is rendered zzvzfare and ver, 12 
puveiv, vocare. 


thougious, With yerrdvas only. It is pleasant to entertain 


XIV. 12-14.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 359 


one’s friends, seemly to entertain one’s relations, advantageous to 
entertain rich neighbours. But these are not high motives for 
hospitality ; and we must not let our hospitality end there. 

pa) mére Kal adrol dvtiKadécwoty oe. Godet remarks that this 
warning is playful. Prends-y garde: la pareille a recevoir, Cest un 
malheur a éviter! Car, une fois la retribution recue, Cen est fait de 
la remuneration future. Comp. ovre pév ds dvtuxAnOyoopevos KaAet 
pe tus (Xen. Symp. i. 15). 

13. Soxhv mors. See on v. 29. 

KdAer TTwXoUs, dvametpous. The former would not have the 
money, the latter would not have the strength, to give an enter- 
tainment. That dvaze(povs is here generic, and that ywAovs and 
tu dovs are species under it, is improbable: comp. ver. 21. The 
mTwxoi are one class,—those wanting in means; and all the rest 
belong to another class,—those wanting in physical strength. 
Beyond this we need not specify ; but in Plato we have dvdrnpo! 
containing the other two classes, of xwAof Te kat TupAot Kat of dAAoL 
dvarnpou (Crizvo, p. 53 A). The ava is intensive: “very maimed.” 
For the command comp. ver. 21 and Neh. viii. ro. 

14, paxdpios gon, dtr odk exoucwv avramododvar cot. The dru is 
strictly logical. Good deeds are sure to be rewarded either in this 
world or in the world to come. ‘Those persons are blessed whose 
good deeds cannot be requited here, for they are sure of a reward 
hereafter. For odk éxovow see on xil. 4. For dvtamododvar in a 
good sense comp. Rom. xi. 35; 1 Thes. iii. 9; in a bad sense, 
Rom. xii. 19; Heb. x..30. The dvi expresses retaliation, exact 
repayment. Comp. Arist. £7. (Vic. ix. 2. 5, where we have déats, 
azrodoréov, and avramddoats. 

év TH avactace: Tov Stxatwy. It is possible that there is here 
a reference to the doctrine of a double resurrection, first of the 
righteous, and then of all. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thes. iv. 16; 
Rey. xx. 5, 6. If so, this is the avdoracts é« vexpdv (xx. 35; Acts 
iv. 2s Phill im1r; 1 Pet. 1. 3: comp. Mk: 1x. 9, xii. 25 } Mt. xvi: 9; 
Gal. i. 1), which implies that some are for the present left unraised, 
as distinct from the avdoraois vexpov (Acts xvii. 32; 1 Cor. xv. 
12, 21; Heb. vi. 2), which is the general resurrection. See Lft. 
on Phil. iii. 11. But r@v duxaiwy may be added merely to indicate 
the character of those who practise disinterested benevolence. 

15-24. The Parable of the Great Supper. The identity of this 
with the Parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son, often called 
the Parable of the Wedding Garment (Mt. xxii. 1-14), will continue 
to be discussed, for the points of similarity and of difference are 
both of them so numerous that a good case may be made for either 
view. But the context, as well as the points of difference, justifies 

1The form dvdzeipos seems to be a mere misspelling of dvdaypos (Tobit 
xiv. 2N: 2 Mac. viii. 24 AV); but it is well attested. WH. ii. App. p. 151. 


360 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 15-17. 


a distinction. The parable in Mt. is a comment on an attempt 
to arrest Christ (xxi. 46), and tells of rebels put to death for insult- 
ing and killing their sovereign’s messengers ; this is a comment on 
a pious remark, perhaps ignorantly or hypocritically made, and 
tells of discourteous persons who, through indifference, lose the 
good things to which they were invited. It is much less severe in 
tone than the other ; and even in those parts which are common 
to the two has very little similarity of wording. 

15. tis Tv cuvavaxerpévwr. ‘The resurrection of the just” 
suggests the thought of the Kingdom, and this guest complacently 
assumes that he will be among those who will enjoy it. With this 
introductory incident comp. x. 25-30, xli. 13-15, xv. I-3. 

gdyetat dptov. A Hebraism: comp. ver. 1; 2 Sam. ix. 7, 10; 
2 Kings iv. 8, etc., and see on ver. 8. It points to the Jewish 
idea that the Messianic age will be inaugurated by a banquet and 
will be a prolonged festival (Is. xxv. 6). The reading dpucrov 
(EH MSU VI) isa mere corruption of dprov. 

16. 6 8 etmev adtG. “ But He said to him” (Rhem.). “ And” 
(Wic.) and “Then” (Tyn. Gen. AV.) obscure the fact that Christ 
is opposing the comfortable self-complacency of the speaker. What 
he says is correct, but the spirit in which he says it is quite wrong. 
Only those who are detached from earthly things, and treat them 
as of small account in comparison with the Kingdom of God, will 
enter therein. 

émotet Setrvov péya. “Was about to make a great supper,” 
similar to that at which Jesus was now sitting. One might expect 
the mid., but comp. ver. 12; Acts viii. 2; Xen. Anad. iv. 2. 23. 
The moddovs are the Jews who observe the Law. In Mt. it is 
avOpwros BactAeds who made a marriage-feast for his son. 

17. tov So0ddov. The vocator, who was sent to remind them, 
according to custom, and not because they were suspected of 
unwillingness.!_ Comp. Esth. v. 8, vi. 14. This custom still pre- 
vails. To omit the second summons would be “a grievous breach 
of etiquette, equivalent to cancelling the previous more general 
notification. To refuse the second summons would be an insult, 
which is equivalent among the Arab tribes to a declaration of war” 
(Tristram, Zastern Customs, p. 82). The dotdAos represents God’s 
messengers to His people, and specially the Baptist and Jesus 
Christ. Comp. Mt. xi. 28-30. 

“EpyeoOe, St. Oy EToura éotiw. The true reading may be épxecbat 
(SADKLPRA) to follow elmety (Syr-Sin.), décere tnvetatis ut ventrent 
(Vulg.). See small print note on xix. 13. But the wdvra after éorw (AP, 
Syr-Sin. Vulg. f) or before éro.ua (D, ae) comes from Mt. xxii. 4. S* BLR, 
bc ff,ilq omit. 





1 Vocatores suos ostendenti, ut diceret a quibus invitatus esset (Plin. NV. H. 
xxxy, 10, 36. 89). Comp. Suet. Calg. xxxix.; Sen. De /ra, iii. 37. 3. 


XIV. 18-20.] "JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 361 


18. jpéavto amd puds wdvtes TapartetoPar. Every word is full of 
point. The very beginning of such conduct was unexpected and 
unreasonable, and it lasted some time. There was no variation ; 
it was like a prearranged conspiracy: they all pleaded that they 
were at present too much occupied to come. And there was not 
a single exception. The zapacretofar comes as a surprise at the 
end, there being no aAA4a or dé at the outset to prepare for a con- 
trast. This absolute unanimity prepares us for a joyous accepiance 
of the courteously repeated invitation. On the contrary, they begin 
“to beg off,” deprecari (Acts xxv. 11; 2 Mac. ii. 31). In Jos. Avz. 
vii. 8. 2 the verb is used, exactly as here, of excusing oneself from 
an invitation. They ought to have excused themselves when the 
first invitation came, if at all. Their begging off now was breaking 
their promise ; and the excuses were transparently worthless. In 
Mt. there is no begging off. Those invited simply apeArjoavres 
dir Bov 5 and some of them insulted, and even killed the vocasores. 
For dpxeoat of proceedings which last some time comp. vii. 38, 
mil 4.5) xix, 37) 45, xxii, 23, xxiii. 2. Here the further idea of 
interruption is not present. 

Gd puds. The expression is unique in Greek literature. Comp. am’ 
evdelas, amd TH tons, ef bpOiis, 6a mdons. Weare probably to supply yrayys : 
amd pads kal THs aurijs yveuns (Philo, De Spec. Legg. ii. p. 311). Both éx 


pads yvaipns and éx pds dwv7js are also found. We might also supply Wuxjs. 
Less probable suggestions are pas, cvvOjKys (Vulg. simul), alrlas, 0600. 


exw avdykqy. A manifest exaggeration, He had already 
bought it, probably after seeing it; and now inspection could 
wait. For the phrase, which is classical, comp. t Cor. vil 34.5 
Heb. vii. 27; Jude 3; and the insertion Lk. xxiii. 17. Not in 
LXX. 


exe pe Tapytpevoy. It is doubtful whether this is a Latinism, 
habe me excusatum, t.e. ‘Consider me as one who has obtained 
indulgence.”! But certainly ye, which is enclitic, cannot be em- 
phatic: “Whatever you do about others, 7 must be regarded as 
excused.” This would require éu¢, and before rather than after 
EXE. Comp. ov Gappodyrd pe e&ers (Xen. Cyr. iii. 1. 35). 

19. mopevopar. “Tam on my way.” He pleads no dvayxy, and 
is too indifferent to care about the manifest weakness of his excuse. 
That he had bought the oxen “on approval” is not hinted. Both 
these two seem to imply that they may possibly come later, if the 
host likes to wait, or the feast lasts long enough. Hence the host’s 
declaration ver. 24. 

20. od Suvapar. He is confident that this is unanswerable. 
See on ver. 26. “When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not ga 


1 Inuitas tune me, cum scis, Nasica, vocasse, 
Excusatum habeas me rogo: ceno donii. 
—(Mart. ii. 79.) 


362 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 20-23. 


out in the host, neither shall he be charged with any business: he 
shall be free at home one year” (Deut. xxiv. 5). Comp. Hdt. 
i720, 5: 

21. The zdvres (ver. 18) probably means more than three. 
But three suffice as examples.. Some said that they would not 
come now; others declared that they could not come at all. 
Comp. the parable of the Pounds, where three servants are 
samples of the whole ten, and represent two classes (xix. 16-21). 

“Efeh@e taxéws. Not because his anger makes him impatient ; 
but because he has no intention of putting off anything to please 
the discourteous persons who have insulted him. He goes on with 
his arrangements at once. 

eis Tas TAaTEtas Kat puyas. We have the same combination Is. 
xv. 3. This use of Avy is late: Acts ix. 11, xli. 10; Ecclus. ix. 73 
‘Tobit xiii. 18. A lane resembles a stream ; and the original sense 
of pvu7 is the rush or flow of what is in motion. See Kennedy, 
Sources of NV.T. Greek, p. 16. The two words combined stand for 
the public places of the town, in which those who have no comfort- 
able homes are likely to be found. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 26-28. 

tods mrwXovs Kal dvatelpous, k.t.A. The Jews who do not ob- 
serve the Law; the pudlicans and sinners. ‘These were not asked 
simply because the others refused, and in order to fill the vacant 
places. They would have been asked in any case; but the others 
were asked first. They both live in the city: ze. both are Jews. 
But those who respected the Law had a prior claim to those who 
rebelled against it. The similarity of wording shows the connexion 
with the preceding discourse (ver. 13); and therefore Bengel’s 
attractive distinction is probably not intended. He points out 
that the oor would get no other invitation ; the maimed would not 
be likely to marry; the 4/zd could not go to see farms ; and the 
Zame would not go to prove oxen. Contrast Mt. xxii. 9, ro. 

eiodyaye GSe. See on ii. 27. It is assumed that they can be 
“brought in” at once, without formal invitation. They are not 
likely to refuse. The mixture of guests of all classes is still seen 
at Oriental entertainments. 

22. Kupte, yéyovey 6 éwétagas. He executes the order, and 
then makes this report. There is no 73y, and we are not to sup- 
pose that he had axticzpated his master’s order ; which would have 
been audacious officiousness, and could hardly have been done 
without his master’s knowledge. 

ért Toros éotiv. Comp. ver. 9. No such expression is found 
in Mt. xxii. 10. It is added because the servant knows that his 
master is determined to fill all the places, and that the banquet 
cannot begin till this is done. 

23. ppaypots. “Hedges” (dpdcow = “I fence in”): Mt. 
xxi. 33; Mk. xii. 1. Just as wAaraia: xal fpdyar represent the 


XIV. 23-25.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 363 


public roads inside the city, so 680i kai paypot the public roads 
outside the city; and this command is the invitation to the 
heathen. 

dvdyxacov cicedOeiv. By persuasion. A single servant could 
not use force, and those who refused were not dragged in. Comp. 
Mk.-vi. 45 || and zapeBiacavro (xxiv. 29 ; Acts xvi. 15). The text 
gives no sanction to religious persecution. By showing that 
physical force was not used it rather condemns it. 

iva yepicOy pov 6 oixos. LVec natura nec gratia patitur vacuum 
(Beng.). We are not told the result of this third invitation ; but 
we may conclude that the Gentiles fill the void which the unbelief 
of the Jews has left (Rom. xi. 25). In Mt. the result of the second 
invitation is étAjoOy 6 vypduy, and there is no third. Augustine 
interprets this third summons as a call to heretics, which cannot 
be correct. 

24, A€yw yap tyiv. Solemn introduction of the main point of 
the parable. The transition from sing. (é&eAGe) to plur. (iptv) is 
variously explained. (1) That some of the rw xoi (ver. 21) are 
present and are included in the address. (2) That there is a transi- 
tion from the parable to its application, and Christ speaks half as 
the host to his servant and others, and half in His own person to 
the Pharisee and his guests. (3) That the host addresses, not 
only the servant, but all who may hear of what he has done. In 
favour of (2) we must not quote xi. 8, xv. 7, 10, Xvi. 9, xvili. 14; 
Mt. xxi. 43. In all these places it is Jesus who is addressing the 
audience ; not a person in the parable who sums up the result. 
Here the éxeivwy and the pov show that the latter is the case. In 
Mt. the conclusion to the parable is toAAot ydp ciow KAqroi, dALyot 
de éxAexrot (xxii, 14), and these are the words of Christ, not of the 
Bacrrevs. 

25-35. § Warnings against Precipitancy and Half-heartedness 
in Following Christ. The Parables of the Rash Builder, the Rash 
King, and the Savourless Salt. The section has been called “The 
Conditions of Discipleship.”” These are four. 1. The Cross to be 
borne (25-27 ; Mt. x. 37, 38). 2. The Cost to be counted (28-32). 
3. All Possessions to be renounced (33). 4. The Spirit of Sac- 
rifice to be maintained (34, 35; Mt. v. 13; Mk. ix. 49). 

The journeying continues, but we are not told the direction ; 
and a large multitude is following. They are disposed to believe 
that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the crisis of the Kingdom is at 
hand. They therefore keep close to Him, in order not to miss any 
of the expected glories and blessings. This fact is the occasion of 
the address. They must understand that following Him involves 
agreatdeal. Like the guest in the Pharisee’s house (ver. 15), they 
have not realized what the invitation to enter the Kingdom implies. 

25. Duvewopevovro b¢ aiva. ‘‘ Now there were going with Him, 


364 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 25-28. 


of what continued for some time. Comp. vii. 11, xxiv. 15. Else- 
where only Mk. x. 1 of people assembling, but often in LXX 
(Gen. xiii. 5, xiv. 24, xviii. 16, etc.). 

26. od picet tov Tmatépa éautod, k.t.A. Does not hate them so 
jar as they are opposed to Christ. The context and the parallel 
passages (Mt. vi. 24, x. 37) show that the case supposed is one in 
which choice must be made between natural affection and loyalty to 
Christ. In most cases these two are not incompatible; and to 
hate one’s parents as such would be monstrous (Mt. xv. 4). But 
Christ’s followers must be ready, if necessary, to act towards what 
is dearest to them as if it were an object of hatred. Comp. Jn. 
Xll. 25. Jesus, as often, states a principle in a startling way, and 
leaves His hearers to find out the qualifications. Comp. vi. 29, 30; 
Mt. xix. 12. The kat tiv yuvaixa here is a comment, whether 
designed or not, on yvvaixa éynwa in ver. 20. Comp. xviii. 29. 

Thy Wuxiv éautod. Not merely his carnal desires, but his life 
(ix. 24, xil. 23); all his worldly interests and affections, including 
life itself. Vec tamen sufficit nostra relinquere, nisi relinquamus et 
nos (Greg. Mag. Hom. xxxii.). So that puceiv tiv Wuxqv éavrod is 
drapvycacbat éavtoy (ix. 23) carried to the uttermost. 

eivat pou pants. The emphasis is on pafyrys, not on pov, 
which is enclitic. ‘He may be following Me in some sense, but 
he is no disciple of Mine.” Would any merely human teacher 
venture to make such claims? 

27. ov Baordle: tov otaupdv éautod. Comp. ix. 23; Mt. x. 38, 
xvi. 24; Mk. vill. 34. Only here and Jn. xix. 17 is Baoralew used 
of the cross ; here figuratively, there literally. ‘‘ Carrying his own 
cross” would be a familiar picture to many of Christ’s hearers. 
Hundreds had been crucified in Galilee for rebellion under Judas 
the Gaulonite (A.D. 6). 


In late Gk. Baordgew seems to be more common than ¢épe, when the 
carrying is figurative: LXX of 2 Kings xviii. 14; Job xxi. 3. It is specially 
common in the later versions of Aq. Sym. and Theod. All three have it Is. 
xl. 11, lxvi. 12; Jer. x. 5: and both Sym. and Theod. have it Prov. ix. 12; 
Is. lxiii. 9. But in none of these places does it occur in LXX. 


28-33. Two Parables upon Counting the Cost: the Rash 
Builder and the Rash King. Comp. Mt. xx. 22; Mk. x. 38. It 
is possible that in both parables Jesus was alluding to recent 
instances of such folly. It was an age of ostentatious building and 
reckless warfare. The connexion with what precedes (ydp) seems 
to be that becoming a disciple of Christ is at least as serious a 
matter as any costly or dangerous undertaking. 

28. tis yap é& bpuav Oéhwy. “For which of you (see on xi. 5), 
if he wishes.” 

xaQicas. In both parables (ver. 31) this represents long and 


XIV. 28-83.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 365 


serious consideration. The matter cannot be settled off-hand. 
Comp. Virg. Aen. x. 159. 


Undlte.. Calculates” (Wipos = calculus). In class. Gk. commonly in 
mid. of voting. Comp. Rev. xiii. 18: notin LXX. Neither drapricuds nor 
damrdvyn occur again in N.T., but damdvy is fairly common in LXX, and 
dmapricpds is very rare in Greek literature! In LXX dzaprifewv occurs 
(1 Kings ix. 25) ; also in Aq. and Sym. See Suicer, daaprifw. 


29. pi} ioxvovtos éxtedéoar. “ Not having the means to finish.” 
For éxreAely comp. Deut. xxxii. 45; 1 Kings xiv. 15; 2 Chron. 
iv. 5; 2 Mac. xv. 9; Dan. ili. 40 (Theod.). Not elsewhere in N.T. 

830. Odros. Contemptuous: v. 21, Vii. 39, xili. 32, where see 
reff. The lesson conveyed is not so much, “It is better not to 
begin, than to begin and fail,” as, “It is folly to begin without 
much consideration.” 

81. cuvBadetv cis woAepov. To be taken together: “to engage 
with another king for the purpose of war.” The verb. is intrans., as 
1 Mac. iv. 34; 2 Mac. viii. 23, xiv. 17; and often in Polyb. The 
more common expression is ovpBadrAav cis paxynv (Jos. Ant. vi. 
5. 3: soalso in Polyb.). Comp. conjiigere. 

év Séka xididow. “Lguipped with ten thousand,” a meaning 
which readily flows from “clad in, invested with.” Comp. 1. 17 ; 
Rom: xv, 29; © Cor. iv. 21; Heb. ix. 25; Jude 14. The very 
phrase occurs 1 Mac. iv. 29. 

82. «i dé unye. See small print on v. 36. 

€pwrG [ta] mpds eipyynv. ‘‘ Asks for negociations with a view to 
peace.” ‘The ra is omitted in 8 B (? Aomeofel.), and the meaning 
will then be, “negociates for peace.” BKII have eis for zpos 
(perhaps from ver. 28). Comp. xix. 42 and examples in Wetst. 
There is a remarkable parallel to this second parable Xen. AZem. 
iii. 6. 8. 

83. This verse shows the futility of asking what the tower 
means, and who the king with the twenty thousand is. These 
details are part of the framework of the parables, and by themselves 
mean nothing. The parables as a whole teach that to become 
Christ’s disciple involves something which ought to be well weighed 
beforehand. ‘This something was explained before, and is shown 
in another form here, viz. complete self-renunciation. 


¥ Dion. Hal. De Comp. Verb. xxiv., and Apoll. Dysc. De Adv. p. §32, 7, seem 
to be alfsost the only quotations. The Latin renderings here are ad perjiczendum 
(f Vulg.), ad consummandum (ar), ad consummationem (e), ad perfectum (d). 

2 Those who insist on explaining the king with the twenty thousand com- 
monly make him mean Satan. But would Christ suggest that we should come 
to terms with Satan? To avoid this difficulty others regard the king as repre- 
senting God. But would Christ place the difference between the power of God 
and the power of man as the difference between twenty thousand and ten 
thousand? Contrast the ten thousand talents and the hundred pence (Mt. 
xviii, 24, 28). See on xii. 5 and xvi, I. 


366 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XIV. 83-88. 


drotdcceTat Tao Tots EauTod bmdpxouow. ‘* Renounceth all 
his own belongings,” the chief of which were specified ver. 26. 
See on ix. 61 and vil. 3. All disciples must be veady to renounce 
their possessions. Many of the first disciples were called upon 
actually to do so. Comp. the sarcasm of Julian: “In order that 
they may enter more easily into the Kingdom of Heaven in the 
way which their wonderful law bids them, I have ordered all the 
money of the Church of Edessa to be seized” (£Z¢. xliii.). Note 
the characteristic tas and waoutv. Comp. v. 11, 28. 


It is very forced to put a full stop at was é€ judy, and make two inde- 
pendent sentences. ‘‘Such is the case therefore with all of you. Whoever 
renounceth not,” etc. 

MSS. vary much as to the order of the three words elval wou wabyris. 


84, 35. The Spirit of Sacrifice. The similitude respecting salt 
was probably uttered more than once, and in more than one form. 
Comp. Mt. v. 13; Mk. ix. 50. The salt is the self-sacrifice spoken 
of vv. 26, 27, 33. The figure of salt is not found in O.T., but 
comp. Job. vi. 6. 

34. Kahév ody 75 Gdas. The ovy (§ B LX 69, Boh.) perhaps 
refers to previous utterances: “Salt, therefore (as I have said before), 
is good.” LWihil utilius sale et sole (Plin. H. WV. xxxi. 9. 45. 102). 

éav 8€ kal 76 Gdas. The xai (8 B L X, Vulg. codd. Syr., Bede) 
must be preserved. “But if even the salt.” In Mt. v. 13 there is no 
cai. Note the characteristic 6 «ai, and see small print on iii. 9. 


In LXX and N.T. das is the common form, with dda as z./. in good 
MSS. Inclass. Gk. ds prevails. 

In class. Gk. pwpalyw is ‘I am foolish” (Eur. Ad. 614); in bibl. Grk. 
pwpaivouat has this meaning (Rom. i. 22; Mt. v. 13), wwpalyw being “I 
make foolish” (1 Cor. i. 20). Mk. has dvadov ylvec@at, Vulg. has evanueret ; 
ade infatuatum fuerit. 

év tive GptuOycerat; Quite impossibly Tyn. and Cran. have ‘* What 
shall be seasoned ther with?” From meaning simply ‘‘ prepare,” dpréw came 
to be used of preparing and flavouring food (Col. iv. 6), 


85. It is futile to discuss what meaning is to be given to “the 
land” and “the dunghill.” They do not symbolize anything. 
Many things which have deteriorated or become corrupt are use- 
ful as manure, or to mix with manure. Savourless salt is not even 
of this much use: and disciples without the spirit of self-devotion 
are like it. That is the whole meaning.! If this saying was uttered 
only once, we may prefer the connexion here to that in the Sermon 
on the Mount. Mk. so far agrees with Lk. in placing it after the 
Transfiguration. But all three arrangements may be right. 





1 For this savourless salt in Palestine see Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo to 
Jerusalem, pp. 161 ff. (quoted by Morison on Mk. ix. 50); alsc Thomson, “‘I 
saw large quantities of it literally thrown into the street, to be trodden under foot 
of men and beasts” (Zand & Book, p. 381). 


XIV. 35-XV. 1.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 367 


xorplay, The word is one of many which seem to be of a colloquial char- 
acter, and are common to N.T. and the comic poets. See Kennedy, Sources 
of N.T. Grk. pp. 72-76. In N.T. only here. Comp. xiii. 8. 


“O €xwv Gra dxovew dxovérw. A solemn indication that attention 
to what has been said is needed, and will be rewarded. It is 
another of Christ’s repeated sayings.. See on viii. 8. 

XV. 1-82. Three Parables for the Encouragement of Penitent 
Sinners. The Love and Free Forgiveness of God. The Lost 
Sheep (3-7) and the Lost Coin (8-10) form a pair. Like the 
Mustard Seed and the Leaven (xiii. 18-21), and the Rash Builder 
and the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), they teach the same lesson, which 
the Prodigal Son (11-32) enforces and augments. In the first two 
Jesus justifies His own conduct against the criticisms of the 
Pharisees. In the third He rebukes their criticisms, but at the 
same time continues the lesson to a point far beyond that touched 
by the objectors. When we regard them as a triplet, each parable 
teaching a separate lesson, Bengel’s classification will stand: 
1. Peccator stupidus ; 2. sui plane nesciens ; 3. sciens et voluntarius. 
But the insertion of efzev d€ (ver. 11) clearly marks off the third 
parable from the first two, whereas these are closely connected by 7, 
which almost implies that the second is little more than an alter- 
native way of saying the same thing as the first 

1-8. The Murmuring of the Pharisees against Christ’s Inter- 
course with Publicans and Sinners. We have had several other 
cases in which Jesus has made a question, or an appeal, or a criti- 
cism, the occasion of a parable: ver. 15, 25-29, xil. 13-15, Xiv. 15. 
There is once more no indication of time or place ; but connexion 
with what precedes is perhaps intended. There a thoughtless 
multitude followed Him, intending to become His disciples, and He 
warns them to count the cost. Here a number of publicans and 
simners congregate about Him, and He rebukes the suggestion 
that He ought to send them away. It was well to check heedless 
enthusiasts, that ¢ey might be saved from breaking down after- 
wards. It would have been a very different thing to have sent away 
penitents, that He might be saved from legal pollution. 

1. "Hoav S€ atta éyyiLovtes mdvtes of TeAGvat Kat of GuaptwAot. 
The meaning of zdvres determines the meaning of the tense. We 
may regard it as hyperbolical for “‘ very many,”—-a common use of 
“all.” Or it may mean all the tax-collectors and other outcasts of 
the place in which He then was. In either of these cases joav 
éyy‘Lovres (see on i. 10) will mean “ were drawing near” on some 
particular occasion. Or we may take zdyres literally of the whole 
class of publicans and sinners ; and then the verb will mean “ used 
to draw near,” wherever He might be. This was constantly hap- 
pening, and the Pharisees commonly cavilled (imperf.), and on one 
eccasion He uttered these parables (aor.). It was likely that He 


368 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XvV. 1-4. 


would attract these outcasts more and more. Comp. vii. 29, 37, 
and see on xi. 29. For the characteristic tavres see on i. 66, 
Vi. 30, xii. 10, etc. Note the repeated article: the reAGvar and the 
dpaptwAot are grouped together as ove class by the Pharisees them- 
selves (v. 30; Mt. ix. 11); not so here by the Evangelist. 

2. Seysyyutov. “ Murmured among themselves, throughout 
their whole company.” In N.T. only here and xix. 7, which is 
very similar. Comp. Exod. xvi. 2, 7, 8; Num. xiv. 2; Josh. ix. 18. 
“The scribes” are usually placed before “the Pharisees ” (v. 21, 
vi. 7, Xl. 53; Mt. xii. 38, etc.). Here perhaps the Pharisees took 
the lead: comp. v. 30 (true text); Mk. vii. 1, 5. 

mpoodéxetar. ‘Allows them access, gives them a welcome”: 
Rom. xvi. 2; Phil. ii. 29. 

ouvecOier. A much more marked breach of Pharisaic decorum 
than zpoodéxerat. He accepted invitations from Levi and other 
tax-collectors, and in His outdoor teaching He took His meals 
with them. 

3. etmev $é. “ But (in answer to this cavilling) He said.” Cov. 
and Cran. have “But”; Tyn. and Gen. “Then.” Something 
stronger than “And” (AV. RV.) is needed. Note efzéy 8¢, cizev 
mpos, and elrev tiv tapaBoAnv as marks of Lk.’s style. None 
of them is found in Mt. xviii. 12. 

4-7. The Parable of the Lost Sheep. Comp. Mt. xviii. 12-14, 
where this parable is given in a totally different connexion, and 
with some differences of detail. Comp. also Jn. x. 1-18. We 
have no means of knowing how often Jesus used the simile of the 
Good Shepherd in His teaching. No simile has taken more hold 
upon the mind of Christendom. See Tert. De Pud. vii. and x. 
Comp. Ezek. xxxiv.; Is. xl. 11; 1 Kings xxii. 17. 

4. Tis dvOpwmos é§ buay. Once more He appeals to their per- 
sonal experience. See on xi. 5, and comp. xii. 25, xiv. 5, 28. The 
avOpwos inserted here marks one difference between this parable 
and the next. 

éxwy éxatoy mpdBata. The point is, not that he possesses so 
much, but that the loss in comparison to what remains is so 
small, 

dmodéoas é& adtav év. This is the point of the first two parables, 
—the particular love of God for each individual soul. In Mt. we 
have wAavn64 (Exod. xxiii. 4 ; Is. lili. 6; Jer. xxvii. 17) for droXéoas, 

katahelmer Ta evevnxovta évvéa, He is the owner, not the shep- 
herd. His leaving them does not expose them to danger. The 
wilderness (in Mt. 7a dpy) is not a specially perilous or desolate 
place, but their usual pasture, in which they are properly tended. 
He does not neglect them, but for the moment he is absorbed in 
the recovery of the lost. Cyril Alex. and Ambrose make the ninety 
and nine to be the Angels, and the one the human race, Ambrose 


XV. 4-7.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 369 


adds, Dives igitur pastor cujus omnes nos centesima portio sumns. 
Migne, xiv. xv. 1756; Ixxii. 798; Payne Smith, p. 497. 
mopevetat él Td Gmodwdds. For el of the goal comp. Acts viii. 26, 


ix. 11; Mt. xxii. 9; in each case after mopevec@ar, Mt. has here ropevéeis 
fnret 76 TWAavwpevor. 


ws edpy aitd, Peculiar to Lk. There is no cessation of the 
seeking until the lost is found. See Lange, Z. of C. i. p. 497. 

5. émtidyow én tods Gpous adtod. This also is peculiar to Lk. 
The owner does not drive it back, nor lead it back, nor have it 
carried: he carries it himself. Comp. Is. xl. 11, xlix. 22, Ix. 4, Ixvi. 12. 
In LXX dGypos is common; in N.T. only here and Mt. xxiii. 4. 

xalpwv. There is no upbraiding of the wandering sheep, nor 
murmuring at the trouble. Comp. the use of xaipwy, xix. 6; Acts 
Vill. 39. 

6. cuvKadet tods pious, See on ix. 1. In Mt. there is nothing 
about his calling others to rejoice with him. Only his own joy is 
mentioned. It is a mark of great joy that it seeks sympathy. 

16 dtrokwdds. Not 6 dawAcoa (ver. 9). The sheep went astray 
through its own ignorance and folly (Ps. cxix. 176): the coin was 
lost through the woman’s want of care. This is another mark of 
difference between the first parable and the second. 

7. \éyw Spiv. Mt. has the characteristic dujv Aéyw piv. 

4 énl. For # without a previous comparative see small print on xvii. 2, 
and comp. Mt. xviii. 8; Mk. ix. 43, 45, 47; I Cor. xiv. 19. Win. xxxv. 2. 
c, p. 302; Simcox, p. 92. Perhaps # may be said to imply paddov by a 
usage which was originally colloquial. It is freq, in LXX; Gen, xlix. 12; 
Num. xxii. 6, etc. In Mt. xviii. 13 the “adov is expressed. 

Sikatorg oitives oF xpetay Exouow petavolas. ‘‘ Righteous who 
are of such a character as to have no need of repentance.” The 
oirwes does not prove that d:xaéous means those who are really 
righteous. It will fit any explanation of dicators and ov xpeiav 
éxovo.v. If both expressions be taken literally, the ninety-nine 
represent a hypothetical class, an ideal which since the Fall has not 
been reached. But as Jesus is answering Pharisaic objections to 
intercourse with flagrant sinners, both expressions may be ironical 
and refer to the external propriety of those whose care about legal 
observances prevents them from feeling any need of repentance. 
Comp. v. 31. 

Mt. here has rots wy wewAavnwévors. In any case the xaipor, 
ver. 5, and the xapa here are anthropomorphic, and must not be 
pressed. Juspferata aut prope desperata magis nos aff--iunt (Grotius); 
but such wz/ooked for results are impossible to Omniscience. We 
must hold to the main lesson of the parable, and not insist on 
interpreting all the details.1 

1 Tn the Midrash there is a story that Moses, while tending Jethro’s flocks, 
went after a lamb which had gone astray. As he thought that it must be weary, 
24 


370 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XV. 7, 8. 


Note the confidence with which Jesus speaks of what takes 
place in heaven, and compare it with the claims made upon His 
followers, xiv. 26, 33. 

petavoodvT. . . . yetavoias. Both verb and substantive are 
much more common in Lk. than in Mt. or Mk. Neither occurs 
in Mt. xviii. 14 or anywhere in Jn. See on v. 32 and iii. 3. 

8-10. §The Parable of the Lost Coin. The main points of 
difference between this and the preceding parable are the changes 
from a man to a woman, and from a sheep, which could stray of its 
own accord, and feel the evil consequences, to a coim, which could 
do neither. From this it follows that, while the man might be 
moved by pity rather than by self-interest to bring back the sheep, 
the woman must be moved by self-interest alone to recover the 
coin; also that the woman can blame herself for the loss of the 
coin (jv dwAeca), which the man does not do with regard to 
the sheep (17d drodwAds). Hence we may infer that the woman 
represents the Church rather than the Divine Wisdom, if she repre- 
sents anything at all. The general result of the two parables is 
that each sinner is so precious that God and His Ministers regard 
no efforts too great to reclaim such. 

8. tis yu; No é& dudrv is added, perhaps because no women 
were present. Yet there may be something in the remark of Wetst. 
Cum varios haberet auditores Christus, mares, feminas, juntores, 
iis parabolas accommodat: de pastore, de muliere frugt, de filio pro- 
digo. Women also may work for the recovery of sinners. 

Spaxpds. The word occurs here only in N.T., but often in 
LXX (Gen. xxiv. 22; Ex. xxxix. 2; Josh. vii. 21, ete). The 
Greek drachma was a silver coin of nearly the same value as a 
Roman denarius} (vii. 41, x. 35, Xx. 24), Which is not mentioned 
in LXX. It was the equivalent of a quarter of a Jewish shekel 
(Mt. xvii. 24). Ten drachmas in weight of silver would be about 
eight shillings, but in purchasing power about a pound. Wic. has 
“besant,” Tyn. and others have “groat,” Luth. has Groschen. 
That the ten coins formed an ornament for the head, and that the 
loss of one marred the whole, is a thought imported into the 
parable. 

Gmtet. The act. is peculiar to Lk. in N.T., and always in the 
sense of £indling (viii. 16, xi. 33; Acts xxviii. 2, and perhaps Lk. 
xxii. 55: comp. Ex. xxx. 8; Tob. viii. 13 ; Jud. xiii. 13). Oriental 
houses often have no windows, and a lamp would be necessary for 
a search even in the day. 


he carried it back on his shoulders, Then God said, that, because he had shown 
pity to the sheep of a man, He would give him His own sheep, Israel, to feed 
(Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. p. 257; Wetst. on Lk. xv. 5). 

1 Nearly all Latin texts have dragmas, dracmas, or drachmas here; but Cod. 
Palat. and dd Novatzanum xv. (Hartel’s Cypr. App. p. 65) have denarios, 


XV. 8-10.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 371 


capoi.! Von sine pulvere (Beng.). It may be doubted whether 
there is any lesson intended in the coins being lost zz the house, 
whereas the sheep strays from the fold ; as showing that souls may 
be lost in the Church as well as by going out of it. In any case, 
the details are graphic, and express great and persevering activity. 
“The charge against the Gospel is still the same, that it turns the 
world upside down” (Trench, Far. p. 386). 

9. Tas pidas Kal yeitovas. “Her women friends and neigh- 
bours.” No meaning is to be sought in the change of gender, 
which merely preserves the harmony of the picture. It is women 
who congratulate Naomi and Ruth (Ruth iv. 14, 17). 

10. yivetar xapa évdmov. ‘There comes to be joy,” etc. The 
yiverau = éorau in ver. 7. Joy will arise in any case that may 
occur. “In the presence of” means “in the judgment of.” The 
angelic estimate of the facts is very different from that of the 
Pharisees: comp. xii. 8, xvi. 22; Eph. 1. 4-14. 

én évt Guaptwko. This is the moral throughout,—the value of 
a single sinner. The Pharisees condemned Jesus for trying to 
reclaim multitudes of sinners. They had a saying, “ There is joy 
before God when those who provoke Him perish from the world.” 

11-32. §The Parable of the Prodigal Son. It completes the 
trilogy of these parables of grace, but we cannot be sure that it was 
uttered on the same occasion as the two other parables. The 
Evangelist separates it from them by making a fresh start: Etrev 
dé (comp. xxiv. 44). But this may mean no more than that Jesus, 
having justified Himself against the murmuring of the Pharisees, 
paused ; and then began again with a parable which is a great deal 
more than a reply to objections. Even if it was delivered on some 
other occasion unknown to Lk., he could not have given it a more 
happy position than this. The first two parables give the Divine 
side of grace ; the seeking love of God. The third gives the human 
side ; the rise and growth of repentance in the heart of the sinner. 
It has been called Lvangelium in Evangelio, because of the number 
of gracious truths which it illustrates.2 It has two parts, both of 
which appear to have special reference to the circumstances in 
which Lk. places the parable. The younger son, who was lost and 
is found (11-24), resembles the publicans and sinners ; and the 
elder son, who murmurs at the welcome given to the lost (25-32), 
resembles the Pharisees. In the wider application of the parable 
the younger son may represent the Gentiles, and the elder the 
Jews. Like the Lost Coin, it is peculiar to Lk., who would take 


1 MSS. of the Vulg. nearly all read evertzt, which Wordsworth conjectures 
to be a slip for everrzt. Lat. Vet. has scopzs mundavit (b f ff 1), scopes mundabit 
(iq), scopes commundat (a), scopis mundat (cr), mundat (d), emundat (e), 

4 Inter omnes Christi parabolas hee sane eximia est, plena affectuum ef 
pulcherrimis picta coloribus 


372 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XV. 11-13. 


special delight in recording a discourse, which teaches so plainly 
that God’s all-embracing love is independent of privileges of birth 
and legal observances. Its literary beauty would be a further 
attraction to the Evangelist, who would appreciate the delicacy, 
picturesqueness, and truth of this description of human circum- 
stances and emotions. See Jerome, £/. xxi., for a commentary, 

11. “AvOpwmds tis etxev. The appeal to the personal experience 
of each is no longer made; but the idea of Jossession still continues 
(éxwv, éxovea, eyev). In each case it is the owner who exhibits the 
self-sacrificing care. 

12. 73 émPdddov pépos tis odcias. According to Jewish law 
this would be half what the eldest received, z.e. one-third (Deut. 
xxi. 17): but had he any claim to it in his father’s lifetime? 

Very possibly he had. We have here perhaps a survival o1 
that condition of society in which testaments “ took effect immedi- 
ately on execution, were not secret, and were not revocable” 
(Maine, Ancient Law, ch. vi. p. 174, ed. 1861), and in which it 
was customary for a father, when his powers were failing, to abdi- 
cate and surrender his property to his sons. In such cases the 
sons were bound to give the father maintenance; but the act of 
resignation was otherwise complete and irrevocable. Both in 
Semitic and in Aryan society this seems to have been the primitive 
method of succession, and the Mosaic Law makes no provision for 
the privileges of testatorship (zdzd. p. 197). The son of Sirach 
warns his readers against being in a hurry to abdicate (Ecclus. 
XXxlii. 19-23), but he seems to assume that it will be done before 
death. We may say, then, that the younger son was not making 
an unheard-of claim. His father would abdicate some day in any 
case: he asks him to abdicate now. See Lxfositor, 3rd series, 
X. pp. 122-136, 1889; Edersh. fist. of J. WV. p. 367. 

This intrans. use of ém8dAdw occurs Tobit iii. 17, vi. 11; 1 Mac. x. 30. 


Comp. xryjudrwv 7d émiBaddov (Hdt. iv. 115. 1). Other examples in Suicer. 
For ovcia comp. Tobit xiv. 13; 3 Mac. iii. 28. 


Suethev attots tov Biov. The verb occurs elsewhere in bibl. 
Grk. 1 Cor. xii. 11 ; Num. xxxi. 27; 1 Mac. i. 6, etc. For tov Bidv 
see On viii. 43. Here it means the same as 7) ovata: Comp. ver. 31. 

13. pet od todas fuepas. He allows no delay between the 
granting of his request and the realization of his freedom. On the 
fondness of Lk. for such expressions as 0d woAAoi, ov paxpay, 
and the like, see on vii. 6. 

cuvaydéywv mdvta. He leaves nothing behind that can minister 
to his desires; nothing to guarantee his return. The stronger 
form arava is well attested ( A etc.). 

els xopav paxpdv. There is no reason for making paxpdy an adv. (ver. 


20) rather than an adj. either here or xix, 12: paxpos in the sense of ‘‘dis« 
tant, remote ” is quite classical. 


XV. 13-16.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 373 


éxet. Away from his father’s care and restraint, and from the ~ 
observation of those who knew him. 

Steckdpmicev Thy odctay. The opposite of cvvaydywv ravra. It 
had cost him nothing to collect it together, and he squanders it as 
easily as he acquired it. 

{av dodtws. The expression occurs Jos. Amz. xii. 4. 8; but 
dowrws is not found again either in N.T. or LXX. The dowros is 
“one who does not save, a spendthrift, a prodigal”: Prov. vii. 11 ; 
comp. Arist. Zh. Vic. ii. 8. 2, iv. 1. 5. For dowria see Eph. 
Weros wut. d65% Pet./ivs 43, Prov. xxviii, 75) 2 Macs, vi. 4. 
Sometimes dowros is taken in a passive sense, “one who cannot 
be saved, abandoned”; erditus rather than prodigus, as if for 
doworos (Clem. Alex. Ped. ii. 1, p. 168, ii. p. 184, ed. Potter). 
But the active signification is appropriate here. Trench, Syz. 
xvi. ; Suicer and Suidas s. dowros. 

14. The working of Providence is manifested in coincid- 
ences. Just when he had spent everything, a famine, and a 
severe one, arose in precisely that land to which he had gone to 
enjoy himself, and throughout (xard) the land. And he himself 
(kai atrds), as well as the country, began more and more to be in 
want. 


Aupds toxvpd. See small print on iv. 25. For kat atrdés see on i. 17, 
v. 14, vi. 20. For torepetoOar, “‘ to feel want” (mid.), comp. 2 Cor. xi. 8; 
Phil. iv. 2; Ecclus. xi. 11. 


15. mopeuleis éxoddyOn Evi tay odttdav. He has to leave his 
first luxurious abode and attach himself, in absolute dependence, 
to one of another nation, presumably a heathen. Evidently his 
prodigality has not gained him a friend in need. Godet sees in 
this young Jew, grovelling in the service of a stranger, an allusion 
to the reAG@vau in the service of Rome. Excepting the quotation 
from LXX in Heb. viii. 11, woditns in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. 
(xix. 14; Acts xxi. 39): in LXX Prov. xi. 9, 12, xxiv. 43, etc. 
For éko\dyOn see on x. 11. For the sudden change of subject 
in émeppev Comp. Vii. 15, Xiv. 5, XVii. 2, xix. 4; Acts vi. 6. 

Béoxew xoipous. A degrading employment for anyone, and an 
abomination to a Jew. Comp. Hdt. ii. 47. 1. But the lowest 
degradation has still to be mentioned. 

16. émeOiper xoptacPAva.. Exactly as in xvi. 21, of the pangs 
of hunger. See on vi. 21. There is no doubt that yoprac@jva 
(SBDLR) is not a euphemism for yeuloar rHv Kowdlay airot 
(APQ XT A), but the true reading: cupiebat saturari (df), con 
cupiscebat saturari (e). Syr-Sin. supports A. 

€k TOV Kepatiwy Gv jobiov ot xoipo.. The pods of the “ carob 
tree,” or “locust tree,” or “John the Baptist’s tree,” or “S. John’s 
Bread”; so called from the erroneous notion that its pods were 


374. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XV. 16-18. 


the locusts which were the Baptist’s food. The carob tree, 
ceratonia siligua, is still common in Palestine and round the 
Mediterranean. It is sometimes called Sidigua Greca. But it is 
rash to assume that the sz/gue of Hor. Zp. ii. 1. 123; Pers. 
ili. 55; Juv. xi. 58, are carob pods (D.&.?i. p. 1412).1_ For the 
attraction in dv see on iii. 19. 

ovdels edi8ou airs. ‘No one used to give him” even this 
miserable food, so that the quantity which he got was small. The 
neighbours cared nothing about this half-starved foreigner, who 
even in this vile employment could not earn enough to eat. 

17. eis Eautdv Sé e€h@dv. Implies that hitherto he has been 
“beside himself”: comp. év éavrd yevduevos (Acts xii. 11). The 
expression is classical both in Greek (Diod. Sic. xiii. 95 ; Epictet. 
ili. 1.15) and Latin, vedive ad se (Hor. £f. ii. 2. 138; Lucret. iv. 
1020; Ter. Adelph. v. 3. 8). This “coming to himself” is mani- 
fested in the thought of home and the longing for it. Want rekindles 
what his revelry had extinguished. See Blass on Acts xii. 11. 

Mécot picbior . . . mepiscedovtat dptwv. There is no emphasis 
on dprwv in contrast to xepariwy: the contrast lies in their having 
plenty to eat. Godet sees the proselytes in these piofio. The 
word occurs in N.T. only here and ver. 19: in LXX Lev. xxv. 50; 
Job vii. 1; Tobit v. 11; Ecclus. vii. 20, xxxiv. 27, XXxVil. II. 


Only in late Greek is repiocevw trans. In N.T. both act. (xii. 15, xxi. 4) 
and pass. (Mt. xiii. 12, xxv. 29) are used in much the same sense. 


éyh 82 Aid GSe dwdddupar. Comp. 7d aicyiorw ddeOpa, Awa 
teXevtTnoat (Thue. iii. 59. 4). The ade is after Amo inXBL, 
before Awd in DRU, ego autem hic fame pereo (Vulg.), while 
AEF etc. omit. The transfer to before Axwé caused it to be lost 
in ey 6é. 

18. dvactas topedcopat. Not mere Oriental fulness of descrip- 
tion (i. 39; Acts x. 20, xxii. 10). The dvacrds expresses his 
rousing himself from his lethargy and despair (Acts v. 17, ix. 6, 
18). 

eis Tov odpavdy. “ Against heaven.” This is not a rare use of 
eis: comp. xvil. 43 Mt. xviii. 21; 1 Cor. vi. 18, vill. 12. It is 
common in LXX and is found also in class. Grk. Comp. Pharaoh’s 
confession, “Hudpryxa evavtiov Kupiov tod @cod tpudv Kai cis tpas 
(Exod. x. 16); also Plat. Rep. iv. 396 A; Phedr. 242 C; Hdt. 
i. 138. 2; Soph. O. C. 968. Filial misconduct is a sin utterly 
displeasing to God. But the eis does not mean “‘ crying to heaven 
for punishment,” immelschreiend, which is otherwise expressed 
(Gen. iv. 10, xvili. 21). For Gpaptévw évdémdv twos comp. 1 Sam. 

166 These ‘husks’ are to be seen on the stalls in all Oriental towns, where 


they are sold for food, but are chiefly used for the feeding of cattle and horses, 
and especially for pigs” (Tristram, Wat, Hest. of B. p. 361). 


XV. 18-22.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 375 


vii. 6, xx. 1; Tobit iii. 3; Judith v. 7; Sus. 23. The sin is 

regarded as something to be judged by the person who re. 
ards it. 

: KAnOivar vids cov. By the father himself. What other people 

may call him is not in question. 

19. ds éva tay picPiwy gov. This will be promotion from his 
present position. He asks it as a favour. 

20. dvactas 7\Pev. The repentance is as real and decided as 
the fall. He prepares full confession, but no excuse ; and, having 
made a good resolution, he acts upon it without delay. Here the 
narrative respecting the younger son practically ends. What 
follows (20-24) is mainly his father’s treatment of him ; and it is 
here that this parable comes into closest contact with the two 
others. Every word in what follows is full of gracious meaning. 
Note especially éavrod, “his ow father,” attod paxpday azéxovtos, 
éorAayxvicOn, and Spapdv. In spite of his changed and beggarly 
appearance, his father recognizes kim even from a distance. 

émémecev wt Tov tpdxndov aitod Kai Katepiinoev adtéy. The 
exact parallel in Acts xx. 37 should be compared. Excepting Mk. 
iii, 10 and the quotations Rom. xv. 3 and Rev. xi. 11, éwemrimrevy 
is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (i. 12; Acts viii. 16, x. 44, etc.), and he 
alone uses it in this sense: comp. Gen. xxxiii. 4, xlv. 14, xlvi. 29. 
Latin texts vary much in rendering érérecev: cecidit (Vulg.), 
incubuit (ad Hier. ad Dam.), procidit (r), superjecit se (e). None 
of them marks the xara-in xaredidynoey, “kissed him tenderly,” 
deosculatus est. See on vii. 38, and comp. Tobit vii. 6; 3 Mac. 
v. 49. As yet the son has said nothing, and the father does not 
know in what spirit he has returned ; but it is enough that he Zas 
returned. ‘The father has long been watching for this. 


With the constr, avrod dxéxovros eldev atrdy, for airov dméxovra elder, 
comp. xii. 36, 


21. He makes his confession exactly as he had planned it: but 
it is doubtful whether he makes his humiliating request. The 
words zroinodv pe os x.7.X., are here attested by SBD UX; but 
almost all other MSS. and most Versions omit them. They may 
be taken from ver. 19, and internal evidence is against them. 
Augustine says, lVon addit quod in illa meditatione dixerat, Fac 
me sicut unum de mercenariis tuis (Quest. Evang. ii. 33). He 
had not counted on his father’s love and forgiveness when he 
decided to make this request; and now emotion prevents him 
from meeting his father’s generosity with such a proposal. But 
the servants are not present. They would not run out with the 
father. Not till the two had reached the house could the order to 
them be given. 

22. Taxd éfevéyxate. “Bring forth quickly”; cito proferte 


376 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XV. 22-24 


‘The father says nothing to his son ; he continues to let his conduct 
speak for him. 


The 7ax¥ must be retained with & BLX, Syr-Sin. Vulg. Boh. Aeth. 
Arm. Goth. D and other MSS. have raxéws. 


otohhv thy mpdtyv. Not, “Ais best robe,” still less “his former 
robe,” which without avrod is scarcely possible; but, “the best 
that we have, the finest in the house.” Comp. Ezek. xxvii. 22. 
The oroAy (créAXw) was any long and stately robe, such as the 
scribes loved to promenade in (xx. 46), the salar: Mk. xii. 38, 
xvi. 5; Rev. vi. 11, vii. 9, 133; Esth. vi. 8,11; 1 Mac. x. 21, xiv. 9. 
It is the common word for the liturgical vestments of Aaron: 
Exod. xxvili. 2, xxix. 21. Trench, Syz. 1; D.2B.? i. p. 808. 


The ri before crodjv (D? R) has been inserted because of the rv before 
mpwrnv, for an epithet joined to an anarthrous noun is commonly itself 
anarthrous. But comp. Rom. ii. 14, ix. 30; Gal. iii. 21, 


SaxtuAvov. Here only in N.T., but freq. in LXX and in classical 
writers. Comp. av7p xpvoodaxrvAwos (Jas. ii. 2). We are probably 
to understand a signet-ring, which would indicate that he was a 
person of standing and perhaps authority in the house (Esth. 
iii. 10, vill. 2; Gen. xli. 42). The Grodjpatra were marks of a 
freeman, for slaves went barefoot. None of the three things 
ordered are necessaries. The father is not merely supplying the 
wants of his son, who has returned in miserable and scanty 
clothing. He is doing him honour. The attempts to make the 
robe and the ring and the sandals mean distinct spiritual gifts are 
misapplied labour. 

23. Ovcate. Not “sacrifice” (Acts xiv. 13, 18; 1 Cor. x. 20), 
for the context shows that there is no thought of a thank-offering 
but “slay” for a meal (Acts x. 13, xl. 7; Jn. x. ro): it implies 
tather more ceremony than the simple “kill.” 

tov pdcxov tov otteutéy. There is only one, reserved for some 
special occasion. But there can be no occasion better than this. 
Comp. 1 Sam. xxviii. 24 ; Judg. vi. 25, 28 (A); Jer. xlvi. 21. With 


oitevTos COMP. azradevtés, yvwords, GedrvevaTos, XwveuTos. 


eippavOapey. Excepting 2 Cor. ii. 2, this verb is always pass. in N.T., 
but with neut. meaning, ‘‘ be glad, be merry” (xii. 19, xvi. 19; Acts vii. 41, 
ete.). 


24. Note the rhythmical cadence of this refrain (24, 32), and 
comp. Exod. xv. 1, 21; Num. xxiii, xxiv.; 2 Sam. i. 19-27. 
Carmine usi veteres in magno effectu (Beng.). There is probably 
no difference in meaning - between the two halves of the refrain ‘ 
but vexpds means “dead to me,” and doAwdds “lost to me.” 
Would the father speak to the servants of his son’s being morally 


XV. 24-27.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM = 377 


dead? Whereas he might well speak of one who had gone away, 
apparently for ever, as practically dead. And if we give a moral 
sense to vexpos, why not to droAwAdds (xix. 10; [Mt. xviii. 11])? 

Here the first part of the parable ends. The welcome which 
Jesus gave to outcasts and sinners is justified. The words xai 
npsavto evppaiverbar should be given to ver. 25 rather than to ver. 
24. An interval elapses during which the father’s command is 
executed; and then the banquet, which is the setting of the 
second part of the parable, begins. 

25-32. In the episode of the elder son the murmuring of the 
Pharisees is rebuked, and that in the gentlest manner. They are 
reminded that they are sons, and that to them of right belongs the 
first place. God and His gifts have always been accessible to 
them (ver. 31), and if they reject them, it is their own fault. But 
self-righteousness and exclusiveness are sinful, and may be as fatal 
as extravagance and licentiousness. 

25. év dyp@. Doing his duty, but in no loving spirit. This 
explains why he was not present when his brother returned. 

cuppwvias kal xopav. Performed by attendants, not by those at 
the banquet. Comp. Déscumbens de die inter choros et symphonias 
(Suet. Calig. xxxvii.). Neither word occurs again in N.T. In 
LXX yxopds is freq. (Exod. xv. 20, xxxil. 19; Judg. xi. 34, etc.); 
cvpdwvia (Dan. iil. 5, 10) is a musical instrument. D.Z.? art. 
“Dulcimer”; Pusey, Dazzie/, p. 29. There were some who under- 
stood symphonia in this passage to mean a musical instrument, for 
Jerome (£Z/. xxi.) protests against the idea. It almost certainly 
means a band of players or singers, and probably fluteplayers (Polyb. 
XXV1. IO. 5, xxxi. 4. 8). D. of Ant.? art. Symphonia. 

26. tay waidwv. Perhaps not the same as the dodAo (ver. 22), 
who are occupied with the banquet. 


Vulg. has servz for both; Cod. Vercell. has werd for both ; Cod. Palat. 
has Auer? for waides and servi for Sod\ax. No English Version distinguishes 
the two words, and RV. bya marginal note implies that the same Greek word 
is used. 


ti av ely taita. “What all this might mean.” Comp. Acts 
x. 17, and contrast Lk. xviil. 36, where there is no dv. Here SAD 
omit av. His not going in at once and taking for granted that 
what his father did was right, is ZerZafs an indication of a wrong 
temper. Yet to inquire was reasonable, and there is as yet no 
complaint or criticism. See second small print on i. 29. 


27. 871. Recitative, and to be omitted in translation: see on i. 45 and. 
vii. 16. Not, ‘‘ Because thy brother is come.” There is no hint that the 
servant is ridiculing the father’s conduct. 


bytatvovta. Not to be taken in a moral sense, about which the 
servant would give no opinion, but of bodily health. The house- 


378 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XV. 27-80. 


hold knew that the father had been anxious about his son’s safety. 
See on vii. ro, and comp. Tob. v. 21. For émé\aBev of “receiving 
back” comp. vi. 34. 

28. dpyicOy Sé Kal odx 79ehev. Note the characteristic 5@ cai 
here and ver. 32 (see on iii. 9), and the change of tense: the 
unwillingness to go in was a state which continued. Hence 
the father’s entreaties continue also (mapexdAer). He treats both 
sons with equal tenderness: the égeh@dv here is parallel to dpapv 
in ver. 20. 

The reading 740é\ncev (A L. PQ RX) arose from a wish to harmonize the 
tenses. The reading ody (P QT A) instead of 5¢ (§ A B D LR X) is followed 


in Vulg. (pater ergo zliius) and AV. (‘‘ therefore came his father out”): but 
it is a correction for the sake of smoothness. Lat. Vet. either vero or autem. 


29. tocaita éry Soudedw oor. His view of his relation to his 
father is a servile one. With tocaita comp. Jn. xii. 37, xxi. 11. 

obdémote evtoAyy cou TapHAPov. The blind self-complacency of 
the Pharisee, trusting in his scrupulous observance of the letter of 
the Law, is here clearly expressed. This sentence alone is strong 
evidence that the elder brother represents the Pharisees rather 
than the Jewish nation as a whole, which could hardly be supposed 
to make so demonstrably false a claim. For wap{\@ov in the sense 
of “neglect, transgress,” see on xi. 42. 

€pot odddrote dwkas Epipov. The pronoun first with emphasis: 
“Thou never gavest me a kid,”—much less a fatted calf. He is 
jealous, and regards his father as utterly weak in his treatment of 
the prodigal; but what specially moves him is the injustice of it 
all. His own unflagging service and propriety have never been 
recognized in any way, while the spendthrift has only to show 
himself in order to receive a handsome recognition. 


Both here and Mt. xxv. 32, B has éplqcov for ép:pos. Here the diminutive 
has point. In LXX épigos prevails. 


iva peta tOv pitwv pou edppavdd. He does not see that he is 
exhibiting much the same spirit as his brother. He wants to have 
his father’s property in order that he may enjoy himself apart from 
him. 

80. 6 vids cou odtos. Contemptuous: “This precious son of 
yours.” He will not say “my brother.” 

peta Tropvay. This is mere conjecture, thrown out partly in con- 
trast to pera tv gidwv pov (who of course would be respectable), 
partly to make the worst of his brother’s conduct. That it shows 
how #e would have found enjoyment, had he broken loose, is not 
so clear. But although there is contrast between ropvdv and tov 
didwv pov, and between rév aitevtov pooxov and épidoy, there is 
none between éOvaas and édwxas, as if the one implied more exertion 
and trouble than the other, and therefore more esteem. 


XV. 80-32.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 379 


#\Gev. There is no bitterness in this, as if to imply that a 
stranger had come rather than a member of the family ve‘urned. 
Throughout the parable the prodigal is said to “come,” not to 
“return” (vv. 20, 27; comp. 18). But there may be bitterness in 
cov tov Biov. As the father had freely given the younger son his 
share, it would more fairly have been called rév Biov airod, . 

81. Téxvov. More affectionate than vié, although the son had 
not said, “Father.” Comp. ii. 48, xvi. 25 ; Mt. xxi. 28; Mk. x. 24; 
2 Tim. ii. 1. 2 

ot mdvtote. In emphatic contrast to the one who has been so 
long absent, and perhaps in answer to his own emphatic éuof (ver. 
29). ‘What he is enjoying for this one day, #hou hast always 
been able to command.” But, like the Pharisees, this elder son 
had not understood or appreciated his own privileges. Moreover, 
like the first labourers in the vineyard, he supposed that he was 
being wronged because others were treated with generosity. 

mdvTa Ta ea od eotiv. If he wanted entertainments he could 
always have them; the property had been apportioned: d:etAcv 
avrots tov Biov (ver. 12). 

Thus the first reproach is gently rebutted. So far from the 
elder son’s service never having met with recognition, the recogni- 
tion has been constant ; so constant that he had failed to take 
note of it. The father now passes to the second reproach,—the 
unfair recompense given to the prodigal. It is not a question of 
recompense at all; it is a question of joy. Cana family do other- 
wise than rejoice, when a lost member is restored to it? 

32. cddpavOfvar S€ Kat xapyvat der. Note the emphatic order. 
“To be merry and be glad was our bounden duty.” The ei¢par- 
@jvat of the external celebration, the xapjvat of the inward feeling. 
The imperf. perhaps contains a gentle reproof: it was a duty which 
the elder son had failed to recognize. 

6 dSeAdds cou obtos. The substitution of 6 ddeAdds cov for 
6 vids pov, and the repetition of otros, clearly involve a rebuke: 
“this thy brother, of whom thou thinkest so severely. If I have 
gained a son, thou hast gained a brother.” 

Not the least skilful touch in this exquisite parable is that it 
ends here. We are not told whether the elder brother at last 
went in and rejoiced with the rest. And we are not told how the 
younger one behaved afterwards. Both those events were still in 
the future, and both agents were left free. One purpose of the 
parable was to induce the Pharisees to come in and claim their 
share of the Father's affection and of the heavenly joy. Another 
was to prove to the outcasts and sinners with what generous love 
they had been welcomed. Marcion omitted this parable. 

XVI. 1-81. On the Use of Wealth. This is taught in two 
parables, the Unrighteous Steward (1-8) and the Rich Man and 


380 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL. 


Lazarus (19-31). The intermediate portion is partly supplementary 
to the first parable (9-13), partly introductory to the second 
(14-18). The first is addressed to the disciples (ver. 1), but is 
felt by the Pharisees who heard it to apply to them (ver. 14). The 
second appears to be addressed directly to the Pharisees. Both of 
them teach that riches involve, not sin, but responsibility and peril. 
They are a trust rather than a possession; and the use made of 
wealth in this world has great influence upon one’s condition in 
the great Hereafter. ‘The steward seems to illustrate the case of 
one who by a wise use of present opportunities secures a good con- 
dition in the future; while the rich man exhibits that of one who 
by misuse of his advantages here ruins his happiness hereafter. 

Attempts have been made to connect these two parables with 
the three which precede, and also with the three which follow. A 
connexion in fact with what precedes cannot be established. 
There is no clear intimation of a break, but there is intimation of 
a fresh start, which may or may not be upon the same occasion. 
But in ¢hought a connexion may be admitted. These two parables, 
like the previous three, are directed against special faults of the 
Pharisees. ‘The former three combated their hard exclusiveness, 
self-righteousness, and contempt for others. These two combat 
their self-indulgence. It is still harder to establish a connexion in 
fact between these two and the three which follow; but Edersheim 
thinks that the thought which binds all five together is righteous- 
ness. The five run thus: the Unrighteous Steward, the Unrighteous 
Owner (Dives), and the Unrighteous Judge; the Self-righteous 
Pharisee and the Self-righteous Servant (Z. & T. ii. p. 264). 
Milligan gives a somewhat similar grouping (Zxfositor, August, 
1892, p. 114). 

1-8. § The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward. The difficulty 
of this parable is well known, and the variety of interpretations is 
very great. A catalogue of even the chief suggestions would serve 
no useful purpose: it is sufficient to state that the steward has 
been supposed to mean the Jewish hierarchy, the tax-collectors, 
Pilate, Judas, Satan, penitents, S. Paul, Christ. Here again, there- 
fore, we have absolutely contradictory interpretations (see on xiv. 
33). But the difficulty and consequent diversity of interpretation 
are for the most part the result of mistaken attempts to make the 
details of the parable mean something definite. Our Lord Him- 
self gives the key to the meaning (ver. 9), and we need not go 
beyond the point to which His words plainly carry us. The 
steward, however wanting in fidelity and care, showed great prud- 
ence in the use which he made of present opportunities as a means 
of providing for the future. ‘The believer ought to exhibit similar 
prudence in using material advantages in this life as a means of 
providing for the life to come. If Christians were as sagacious 


XVI.1.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 381 


and persevering in using wealth to promote their welfare in the 
next world, as worldly men are in using it to promote their in- 
terests here, the Kingdom of God would be more flourishing than 
it is. We may put aside all the details of the parable as mere 
setting. Every parable contains details which are not intended to 
convey any lesson, although necessary to complete the picture, or 
to impress it upon the memory. In this parable the proportion 
of such details is larger than in others. It should, however, be 
noticed that the steward provides for his future by means of goods 
which are not his own, but are merely entrusted to his care. The 
wealth out of which the Christian lays up treasure in heaven is in 
like manner not his own, but is held in trust. The method of the 
parable is very similar to that in the parable of the Unrighteous 
Judge (xiii. 2). In both we have an argument @ fortiorz. In that 
case the argument is, If an unrighteous judge will yield to the 
importunity of a stranger, how much more will a righteous and 
loving Father listen to the earnest prayers of His own children? 
Here the argument is, If an unrighteous steward was commended 
by his earthly master for his prudence in providing for his future 
by a fraudulent use of what had been committed to him, how 
much more will a righteous servant be commended by his heavenly 
Master for providing for eternity by a good use of what has been 
committed to him? But see the explanation given by Latham in 
Pastor Pastorum, pp. 386-398. ‘The literature on the subject is 
voluminous and unrepaying. For all that is earlier than 1800 see 
Schreiber, Wistorico-critica explanationum parabole de improbo econ. 
descriptio, Lips. 1803. For 1800-1879 see Meyer-Weiss, p. 515, 
or Meyer, Eng. tr. p. 209. - 

1. "Edeyev S€ kal mpds tods pabytds, For ecyey dé of a new 
start in the narrative see xviii. 1. The meaning of the xai is 
that at this time He also said what follows, and it was addressed 
to the disciples. The latter would include many more than the 
Twelve. Note both dé xad (xv. 28, 32) and zpds. 

“AvOpwrds tis jv mAovotos. The rich owner is almost as 
variously interpreted as the steward. The commonest explana- 
tion is God; but the Romans, Mammon, and Satan have also 
been suggested. Grave objections may be urged against all of 
these interpretations. It is more likely that the owner has no 
special meaning. We are probably to understand that he lived 
in the town while the steward managed the estate. Note the rus. 

oixovouoy. Here he is a superior person to the one mentioned 
xli. 42. There the steward is a slave or freedman, left in charge 
of other slaves, corresponding on the whole to the Roman a@s- 
pensator or villicus. Here he is a freeman, having the entire 
management of the estate, a procurator. Comp. Si mandandum 
aliquid procuratori de agriculturd aut imperandum villico est (Cic. 


382 TILE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL 1-3. 


De Orat. i. 58. 249). But the procurator was often a slave, and 
perhaps in some cases was not superior to the disfensator or the 
villicus. See D. of Ant. ii. pp. 496, 957. Vulg. has wz//icus here 
and disfensator xii. 42 (where see note) and avcarius Rom. xvi. 23. 

SreBAyjOy adits. This use of duaBaddew of hostile information 
presumably true is not common in class. Grk. It probably implies 
accusing Jehind a person’s back (Dan. iii. 8, vi. 24 (Theod.) ; 2 Mac. 
ili, 11; 4 Mac. iv. 1; Hdt. viii. rro. 1; Thue. iii. 4. 4); but évdca- 
BadXev is used Num. xxii. 22 of mere hostility. Eusebius (perhaps 
quoting Papias) says of the woman, who may be identical with the 
woman taken in adultery, duaBAnbeion éxi tod Kupiov (HA. ZL. iii. 
39. 16). Vulg. here has diffamatus est; Beza, delatus est; Luther, 
der ward beriichtiget. ‘The ws by no means implies that the charge 
was false (Jas. ii. 9), but is in accordance with the best authors, 
who use it after xaryyopeitv as well as after duaBadrAcw. The 
steward does not deny the charge. 

&s Stackoprifwr. Not guasi dissipasset (Vulg.), “that he had 
wasted” (AV.); but “as wasting” or “as a waster of.” For ra 
iwdpxovta aitod see on viii. 3. The epithet tov oixovopuov ris 
aduxtas (ver. 8) does not refer to this culpable neglect and 
extravagance, but to the fraudulent arrangement with the creditors. 
Nevertheless there is no hint that his fraud was a new de- 
parture. 

2. gwvjcas aitov. For dwveiv of summoning by a message 
comp. xix. 15; Jn. ix. 18, 24, xi. 28. 

Ti TodTo dkovw mept ood; No emphasis on oi, as if it meant 
“of thee among all people.” The question is taken in three ways. 
“What? do I hear this of thee?” 2. “What is this that I hear 
of thee?” (RV.). 3. “Why dol hear this of thee?” Acts xiv. 
15, where ti tavra moire; means, “Why do ye these things?” 
is in favour of the last. See Blass on Acts xiv. 15. 

dmd80s Tov Aéyov. “ Render the (necessary) account.” This is 
commonly understood of the final account, to prepare for the 
surrender of the stewardship. But it might mean the account to 
see whether the charge was true; and the use elsewhere in N.T- 
rather points to this (Mt. xii. 36; Acts xix. 40; Rom. xiv. 12; 
Heb. xiii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 5). In that case the thought to be 
supplied is, ‘‘a steward who cannot disprove charges of this kind 
is an impossibility.” The steward, knowing that he cannot dis- 
prove the charges, regards this demand for a reckoning as equivalent 
to dismissal. 

With the originally Ionic form é¥vy (NBD P) contrast ¢dyecas and 
mleoat (xvii. 8). 


8. etrev év éoutS. Not then and there, but when he thought 
the matter over afterwards. Comp. vii. 39, xviii. 4; Mt. ix. 3. 


XVI. 3-8.) JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 383 


Note the pres. ddatpetrat, “is taking away,” ze. what he is doing 
amounts to that. He does not say, “has taken away.” 

oxdmtew obk icxtw. “I have not strength to dig.” Comp. 
oxdrrev yap ovK eriorapat (Aristoph. Aves, 1432). Only here and 
xviii. 35 does éwattetv occur in N.T. Comp. Ps. cvili. 10; Ecclus. 
xl. 28. It means “to ask again and again, ask importunately,” and 
so “to beg for alms.” Soph. O.C.1364. Comp. zpocaireiy, Jn. ix. 8. 

4. éyvev. The asyndeton and the aor. express the suddenness 
of the idea: swbzto consilium cepit (Beng.). This aor. is sometimes 
called aoristus tragicus. Burton, § 45. The subject of Seva: 
is the debtors mentioned afterwards. See Blass on Acts xiii. 22, 

5. xpeoptdetav. Comp. vii. 41 ; Prov. xxviii. 13; Job xxxi. 37. 
They paid in kind, and the steward had sometimes received more 
from them than he had put down in the accounts. This time 
he makes the amount paid agree with the amount entered by 
reducing the amount paid. He thus curries favour with the 
debtors, and to some extent lessens the number of his manifest 
defalcations. The covenants were kept by the steward; and he 
now hands to each debtor his written agreement,—Aéfar cov 7a 
ypapy.ara,—in order that the debtor may reduce the amount which 
he covenanted to pay. The debtor gained on this last payment. 
The steward gained on the previous payments. 

6. Bdtous. Here only in N.T. Comp. Aq. Sym. Theod. 
Is. v. 10 (where LXX has xepduov), and Jos. Azz. vill. 2.9. The 
bath was for liquids what the efah was for solids. It equalled 
about 8} gallons, being the pertpytys of Jn. ii. 6; and 100 bach 
of oil would probably be worth about £10. See Edersh. His¢. of 
/- LV. p. 283, ed. 1896. For xa@ioas see on xiv. 28. 

7. «épous. Here only in N. T. Comp. Lev. xxvii. 16; Num. 
xi. 32; Ezek. xlv. 13: Jos. Azz. xv. 9. 2. The cor or homer=10 
ephahs = 30 seahs or odra (xiil. 21; Mt. xiii. 33). It equalled 
about ro bushels, and 100 cor of wheat would be worth £100 to 
#120. But there is very great uncertainty about the Hebrew 
measures, for da¢a are vague and not always consistent. We are 
to understand that there were other debtors with whom the steward 
dealt in a similar manner; but these suffice as examples. The 
steward suits his terms to the individual in each case, and thus 
his arbitrary and unscrupulous dealing with his master’s preperty 
is exhibited. See Schanz, ad loc. 


Both Bdros and xképos are instances of Hebrew words which have assumed 
regular Greek terminations, See Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 44. 


8. tov oikovdpnov Tis adiucias. These words are to be taken 
together, aS Tod papwva tis adukias shows. In both cases we 
have a characterizing genitive. Comp. xpuris tis dduxias (xviii. 6). 
Win. xxx. 9. b, p. 254, xxxiv. 3. b, p. 297; Green, p. go. 3 


384 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL& 


It is grammatically possible to take ris ddiclas after éwyjvecev (4 Mac 
i. 10, iv. 4); but in that case 67 Ppovluws érolyoey would be very in- 
congruous. 


gpovipws. “ Prudently, intelligently,” with a shrewd adjustment 
of means to ends. It is the man’s prompt savoir faire that is 
praised. Wic. has “prudently” from prudenter (Vulg.); but all 
other English Versions have “wisely.” Some have erroneously 
concluded from this that the scrutiny of the accounts ended 
favourably for the steward; others that, although he did not 
escape detection, yet he was allowed to remain steward for his 
shrewdness. The original charge was not disproved, and the 
steward was dismissed. His master saw that in spite of this he 
had found friends and a home, and for this commended him. 
Comp. Syr. Zo, queso, laudas qui heros fallunt? Chr. Jn loco 
ego vero laudo Recte sane. Ter. Heaut. iii. 2. 26. The adv. occurs 
here only in N.T., but ¢pdvysos is common (xii. 42; Mt. vii. 24, 
x. 16, xxiv. 45, etc.). 

Stt of viol Tod aidvos tovTov. “ He was justified in praising 
his shrewdness, because”; or, “I cite this example of shrewdness, 
because.” This is the moral of the whole parable. Men of the 
world in their dealings with men like themselves are more prudent 
than the children of light are in their intercourse with one another. 
Worldly people are very farsighted and ready in their transactions 
with one another for temporal objects. The spiritually minded 
ought to be equally ready in making one another promote heavenly 
objects. ‘‘The sos of this world” occurs only here and xx. 34; 
but comp. Acts iv. 36; Mk. il. 19. 


dpovipdrepot vep. For this use of dmép comp. Heb. iv. 123 Judg. xi, 
25; 1 Kings xix. 4; Ecclus, xxx. 17; also apd, iil. 13. 


tods uios Tod durds. We have viol gwrds, Jn. xii. 36; 1 Thes. 
v. 5; and réxva guts, Eph. v. 8; comp. 2 Thes. ii. 3. Is the 
expression found earlier than N.T. ? Comp. i. 78, ii. 32; and see 
Lft. Epp. p. 74. ‘ , 

eis Thy yevedv Thy Eauvtav. Not, “zm their generation,” but, 
“ towards their own generation” ; erga idem sentientes; tm Verkehr 
mit thres Gleichen. The clause belongs to both of viot 7. aidvos 
tovrov and tovs viod’s tr. dwrds, not to the former only. The 
steward knew the men with whom he had to deal: they would 
see that it was to their own interest to serve him. The sons of 
light ought to be equally on the alert to make use of opportunities. 


Vulg. has zz generatione sua; but Cod. Palat. reads zm saculum istut, 
which respects the els, while it misrepresents €aurap, 


9-14. Comments respecting the Parable and its Application, 
which are still addressed to the disciples. To prevent possible 


XVL9.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 385 


but his prudence in using present opportynities as a means of 
providing for the future. 
SS Kal cyh apir eye. “ And J say to you,” or “J also say 
to you”; balancing what the masér said to the steward. The 
> lrypiapalepel seman: iinetie pallor nara 


Heese, ws im 48 and Acts x. 26, the comect reading scenes to be eat 


éautois wooate gikovs. The pronoun stands first with 
emphasis. “In your own interest make friends.” The friends 
are those in need, who are succoured by the benevolent use of 
wealth, and show their gratitude by blessing their benefactors and 
=e gee Sf pig atelier armcireminie gaara 
(ME xxv. 40), and it is well worth while having them as friends. 
Se ae a in. Mammon is not personified here as it is 
im ver. 13. Comp. 29 éreye éxi ypypacw aédixus (Ecclus. v. 8). 

The word appears to mean “thet which is trusted im” Lascrmems Puemizce 
mammon dicitur (Aug. De Serm. Dom. in Monte, i. t4. 47). Bet although 
found im Punic it is of Syman orig and was m we mthe Targums. The 
expression occurs in the Book of Enoch: “Our souls are satished with the 
mammon of unrizghizousness, bat this does not prevent us from 
into the flame of the pam of Sheol*® (ima. 10). “There are rebbimieal sayings 
which are akm to what Jesus here szys: 4g. that “alms are the aalt of 
riches,” and that “the rich help the poor im this world, but the poor the 


2 
lt 
tH 
Uo 
att 
: 
ee 
m 


iva Gray éxhiwy Séfevra: Spas. Here, as m xiv. 10, the Sa, 
if it expresses purpose and not result, refers to Christ’s purpose 
in giving this advice rather than to that of the disciples im follow- 
ing it. “When it shall fail” means when the wealth shall have 
come toanend. The subject of &Airy is 5 papewas. The read 
ing exXizyre or exXcizyre would mean “when ye die” (Gen 
xxy. 8, xlix. 33; Ps. civ. 29; Jer. xiii (xix) 17, 22; Tobit xiv. 11; 
Wisd. v. 13). In either case the verb is mtrans. No acc. is to be 
understood. Comp. Ps. Sof. ii 16, xvii 5. 

The evidence although somewhat confused, is quite decisive for the sing, 
éxXiry or Gcheixy (R* AB*DLRXI ete, Spyz Boh Am. Acth) 2s 
agaist the plur. é&cMrgre or écXcirqre FROPAA ae ce, Vale. Goth.) 
Wordsw. is almost alone in defending éxMfrgre. Sadler represents the choice 
as between “ye fail” and “‘ they fil.” 

Sefévrax. This may be impersonal, like eiotcw im xi 20 

25 


386 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XVI. 9-12. 


But possibly the ¢iAo are to be understood as procuring the 
reception: gui eos introducant in tabernacula xterna, gui necesst- 
tatibus suis terrena bona communicaverint (Aug. Quest. Evang. 
ii. 34); or again, as giving them a welcome when they enter. Comp. 
the use of SexeoGar ix. 5, 48; Jn. iv. 45. 

eis Tas aiwvious oxyvds. The emphasis is on aiwviovus, “into 
the eferna/ tabernacles,” in contrast to the uncertain and transitory 
houses of the debtors (ver. 4). The steward secured a home for 
atime; but a wise use of opportunities may secure a home for 
eternity. In 5 Esdras ii. 11 God is represented as promising ‘o 
Israel, dabo ei's tabernacula xterna, que preparaveram tills (Fritzsche, 
p. 643). Some such idea Peter seems to have had in his mind 
at the Transfiguration (ix. 33). The combination of “eternal” 
with “tabernacles” is remarkable, because oxyvai is commonly 
used of dwellings which are very temporary. 

10. We have here a general principle which is capable of 
application in a variety of spheres. The reference to the parable 
is less direct than in ver. 9. 

év ékaxtot@. ‘In very little” rather than ‘‘in that which is least.” 
Comp. xix. 17. We find in Irenzeus, Sz 27 modico fideles non fuzstis, quod 
magnum est guzs dabit vobts (ii. 34. 3), which is probably a loose quotation 
of Lk. made from memory. In the so-called 2 Ep. Clem. Rom. we have a 
similarly fused citation: ef 7d puxpdv ov érnpjoare, 76 wéya Ths div dwoe 5 
Aéyw yap buiv dre 6 miords ev ehaxlaTw Kal év ToAN@ meoTds ety (viii.), 
which some suppose to have come from an apocryphal gospel, and others to 
be the source used by Irenzus. Comp. Hippol. Her. x. 29, a éml te 
puxp@ mords evpebels kal Td uéya muorevOnvar SvvyOys. All three are probably 
reminiscences of Lk. Comp. Mt. xxv. 21, 23. 


11. 74 dSikw papova. Obviously this means the same as the 
Popwva THs ddckcas, 2.e. the wealth which is commonly a snare and 
tends to promote unrighteousness. Some, however, make 7a 
adikw balance 76 éAnOuwov, and force ddi.xos to mean “ deceitful,” 
and so “false” wealth, which is impossible. 

+o &\$ivdv. That which is a real possession, genuine wealth. 
We are not to supply popwva, which is masc. Heavenly nches 
would not be called ‘“‘mammon.” It is clear that this is parallel 
to woAAG in ver. 10, as ddékw papwva to éAaxiorw, and that this 
genuine wealth means much the same as the “ten cities” (xix. 
17). The connexion between motot and motedce, “trusty” and 
“entrust,” is perhaps not accidental. Neither Latin nor English 
Versions preserve it. Cran, has the impossible rendering, “‘ who 
wyll beleve you in that whych is true.” 

12. év 76 dddotpiw. Earthly wealth is not only trivial and 
unreal; it does not belong to us. It is ours only as a loan and 
a trust, which may be withdrawn at any moment. Heavenly 
possessions are immense, real, and eternally secure. With odx 
eyéveobe, ‘‘ye did not prove to be,” comp. yeyovévat (x. 36). 


XVI 12-14.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 387 


TO Gpérepov tis Sécer Suiv; ‘ Who will give you (in the world 
to come) that which is entirely your own,” your inheritance, “the 
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” 
(Mt. xxv. 34). The case sketched in these three verses (10-12) 
is that of a wealthy owner who educates his son for managing the 
estate to which he is heir, and proves his fitness for it by allow- 
ing him to have control of something that is of little value except 
as an instrument for forming and discerning character. If the 
son proves faithless in this insignificant charge, he is disinherited. 
Zl y a la une admirable conception du but de la vie terrestre et 
mime de Pexistence de la mativre (Godet). 


It seems to be impossible to make satisfactory sense of the notable 
reading 7d 7uérTepov, attested by B L and Origen, and to some extent by 
Tertullian, who has meum (Adv. Marc. iv. 33): eil also have meum, and 
157 has éwov. Almost all other witnesses (NADPRXTAATI etc., 
Versions, Cypr. Cyr-Alex. etc.) have 7d buérepov, which, however, would be 
an inevitable correction, if 7d juérepov were genuine, 


13. This verse forms a natural conclusion to the comments 
on the parable; and, if it was uttered only once, we may believe 
that this is its original position, rather than in the Sermon on the 
Mount, where it is placed by Mt. (vi. 24). So Schanz, Weiss. 

OdSels oikérns SUvatat Sucl Kuptors Soudevew. ‘No domestic 
can de a slave to two masters”: comp. Jas. iv. 4. To bea 
servant to two masters is possible, and is often done. But to be 
at the absolute disposal of two masters is not possible. The 
force of dovAevew must be preserved, and the special meaning of 
oixérys is also worth noting. 

# évds dvOéfetar. The omission of the article makes very little 
difference: ‘‘one or other of the two.” As the second clause is 
less strong than the first, the 7 may be understood in the sense 
of “or at cast he will hold on to”—so as to stand by and 
support. 

ov Sdvac8e. It is morally impossible, for each claims undivided 
service. Mammon is here personified as a deity, devotion to 
whom is shown in “ covetousness which is idolatry ” (Col. iii. 5). 
No vice is more exacting than avarice. 

14-18. Introduction to the Parable of the Rich Man and 
Lazarus. 

14. “Hxovoy 8€ taita mdévra. This shows that the occasion is 
the same; but the scoffs of the Pharisees diverted Christ’s words 
from the disciples (ver. 1) to themselves. Note the zavro. . 

gi\dpyupo. adpxovtes. Avarice was their constant character- 
istic: for the verb see on viii. 41 and xxili. 50. The adj. occurs 
2 Tim. iii. 2 and nowhere else in bibl. Grk., but is quite classical. 
2 Mac. x. 20 we have ¢uAapyupetv. The covetousness_ of 
the Pharisees is independently attested, and they regarded their 


388 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVI. 14, 15 


wealth as a special blessing for their carefulness in observing the 
Law. Hence their contempt for teaching which declared that 
there is danger in wealth, and that as a rule it promotes un- 
righteousness. They considered themselves an abiding proof of 
the connexion between riches and righteousness: moreover, they 
had their own explanation of the reason why a Rabbi who was 
poor declaimed against riches. Comp. xx. 47. 


SEcpuxtypilov. ‘Turned up the nose (uuxrfp) at”: xxiii. 35; Ps. ii. 4, 
xxxiv. 16. Here deridebant (f), tnridebant (a), subsannabant (d). In class, 
Grk. puxrnplfev is more usual: Gal. vi. 7; 2 Kings xix. 21; Pr. i. 303 
Is. xxxvii. 22; Jer. xx. 7. In medical writers it means ‘‘ bleed at the nose.” 


15. évdmiov tav avOpérwv. This is the emphatic part of the 
statement. The Pharisees succeeded in exhibiting themselves as 
righteous persons im the judgment of men; but God’s judgment 
was very different. Comp. Mt. vi. 2, 5, 16, xxiil. 5, 6, 7, 25. 

6 8€ Ocds yudoKer Tas Kapdias. The use of ywwoxew, which 
commonly implies the acquisition of knowledge, rather than 
eidévat, is remarkable. We find the same word used of Christ, 
even where the knowledge must have been supernatural (Jn. ii. 
24, 25, X. 14, 27, xvii. 25). The exact antithesis would have been, 
“but before God ye cannot justify yourselves.” This, however, 
would have implied that there were no Pharisees who were not 
hypocrites: that God reads their hearts is true in all cases. 
Comp. 6 6& @eds derar eis kapdiay (1 Sam. xvi. 7), and again, 
magas Kapdias éraler Kbpios Kal wav évOvunua ywdoxe (1 Chron. 
XXVIii. 9). 

dt. 7d ev dvOpdors Gndév. We must understand something 
before 67: “‘ But God knoweth your hearts [and He seeth not as 
man seeth], because that which is exalted in the eyes of men,” 
etc. For this use of év comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 11, and perhaps Jude 1: 
it is clear that év évOpdzrous = evwdriov TV Gree above. Comp. 
Job x. 4; 1 Sam. xvi. 7. 

BSAvypa. Here only in N.T. in the general sense of an 
Jae comp. Gen. xlili. 31, xlvi. 34. Elsewhere (Mt. 

a5; Mk. xu 24> Rev, xvit 4; 5). xxi. 27) of the special 
abominations of idolatry: comp. 1 Kings xi. 5, 33, xx. 26; 2 Kings 
xvi. 3, xxi. 2. The word belongs to Hellenistic Greek, and is very 
freq. in LXX. It meant originally that which greatly offends the 
nostrils, and it is very much in excess of the usual antithesis to 
tymAdv, Viz. Tarrewov. See Suicer, 5.2. 


16-18. The discourse has been so greatly condensed that the connecting 
links have been lost. It is possible that the connexion is something of this kind. 
“*To be justified before God is all the more necessary now when the Kingdom 
of God among men is being founded. The Law has been superseded. Its types 
have been fulfilled, and its 2xclusiveness is abolished: everyone now can force 
his way to salvation. But the oral principles of the Law are imperishable ; 


XVI. 15-18.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 386 


you cannot abolish them. And thus your frequent divorces violate the spirit of 
the Law.” Others regard ver. 18 as symbolical. ‘* You and those whom you 
instruct are wedded to the Divine revelation, and if you desert it for anything 
else you are guilty of spiritual adultery.” But in that case what meaning can 
the second clause have? How can anyone commit spiritual adultery by accept- 
ing the revelation which the Jews rejected? See on ver. 18 for another attempt 
at a parabolic interpretation. 


16. “O vouos kat of mpopftat. A common expression for the 
‘ O.T. Dispensation. It may point to a time when the Hebrew 
Canon consisted only of the Law and the Prophets (Mt. v. 17, 
Vii. 12, xxii. 40; Acts xili. 15, xxviii. 23). See Ryle, Canon of O.T. 
-p. 118. 

E péxpt “lodvov. We supply joov: “they existed and had 
authority until John.” 


This is the only passage in which wéxpr is found preceding a vowel ; else- 
where wéxpis is used (Mk. xiii. 30; Heb. xii. 4). See on dxpu, i. 20. 


mas eis adtyv Bidfetar. ‘Every one forces his way into it,”— 
perhaps not always in the right spirit. See Hort, /udazstic 
Christianity, p. 26. The zs is to be noticed: the Jew has no 
longer any exclusive rights. Here fiaerat is mid. according to 
class. usage: in Mt. xi. 12 it is pass.—“‘the Kingdom of God is 
forced, taken by storm.” 

17. Edxomdtepov. See on v. 23. The 8 which follows it is 
“But” (RV.), not “And” (AV.). Many English Versions omit 
the conjunction. Facilius est autem (Vulg.). 

xepéav. Minime litere minimus apex, t.e. one of the little horns 
(xépas) or minute projections which distinguish Hebrew letters, 
otherwise similar, from one another. There are several Jewish 
sayings which declare that anyone who is guilty of interchanging 
any of these similar letters in certain passages in O.T. will destroy 
the whole world. Wetst. on Mt. v. 18; Schoettg. i. p. 29; Edersh. 
L. & T. i. pp. 537, 538. 


For the form xepéa = xepala comp. ii. 13, and see WH. ii. App. p. I51. 
Marcion read rv Adywy pov, or TS Adywv TOD Kuplov, instead of rod vdyov. 
The reading has no support ; and wlay xepéav is more applicable to the written 
law than to the as yet unwritten words of Christ. See Tert. 4dv. Marcion. 
iv. 33, and contrast Lk. xxi. 33. 


mecetv, “To fall to the ground” as devoid of authority: 
comp. Rom. ix. 6?; 1 Cor. xiii. 8. The moral elements in the Law 
are indestructible, and the Gospel confirms them by giving them a 
new sanction. 


18. Perhaps this introduces an example of the durability of the moral law in 
spite of human evasions. Adultery remains adultery even when it has been 
legalized, and legalized by men who jealously guarded every fraction of the 
letter, while they flagrantly violated the spirit of the Law. ‘‘ Because he hath 
found some unseemly thing in her” (Deut. xxiv. 1), was interpreted with such 


390 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL 18 


frivolity, that Hillef is said to have taught that a map might divorce his wife for 
spoiling the dinner. Comp. Mk. x. 11, 12 and Mt. v. 32 for other statements 
of Christ’s doctrine. Mt. v. 32 states the one exception. 

It is very forced to take the whole utterance as a parable. ‘‘It is spiritual 
adultery to cast off all the obligations of the Law; and it is also spiritual 
adultery to maintain all those obligations which have been rescinded by the 
Gospel.” But this does not fit the wording; and, if it did, would it have been 
intelligible to those who heard it? According to this explanation the wife 
unlawfully put away = those elements in the Law which are eternal ; and the 
divorced wife unlawfully married to another man = those elements of the Law 
which are obsolete. But in the parable (if it be a parable) we have not two 
women but one. It is better to take the words literally, and leave the connexion 
with what precedes undetermined. 


19-31. § The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus; in two 
scenes, one on earth (19-22) and the other in Hades (23-31). It 
continues the lesson respecting the right employment of earthly 
possessions. The unjust steward showed what good results may 
follow from a wise use of present advantages. The rich man shows 
how disastrous are the consequences of omitting to make a wise 
use of such things. This second parable illustrates in a marked 
way some of the utterances which precede it. ‘That which is 
exalted among men” describes the rich man in his luxury on earth. 
‘An abomination in the sight of God ” describes him in his misery 
in Hades. “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than 
for one tittle of the law to fail,” shows that Moses and the Prophets 
still avail as the teachers of conduct that will lead a man to 
Abraham’s bosom rather than to the place of torment. There is 
no taint of “ Ebionitic heresy” in the narrative. It emphasizes the 
dangers of Ith; but it nowhere implies the unlawfulness of 
wealth. (See Milligan, 4 Group of Parables, in the Expositor for 
September 1892, p. 186.) It is not suggested that the rich man 
ought to have renounced his riches, but that he ought not to have 
found in riches his highest good. He ought to have made his 
earthly possessions a means of obtaining something much higher 
and more abiding. Out of this mammon, which in his case was 
unrighteous mammon, he might have made Lazarus and others his 
“friends,” and have secured through them eternal tabernacles. 
His riches were “zs good things,” the only good things that he 
knew ; and when he lost them he lost everything. ‘‘ What doth it 
profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?” There 
is no reason for supposing that the second half of the parable is a 
later addition, or that it is the only part which has a meaning. It 
is when both are combined that we get the main lesson,—that to 
possess great wealth and use it solely for oneself, without laying up 
treasure in heaven, is fatal. 


The parable is sometimes understood quite otherwise. Lazarus is the Jewish 
people, ill-treated by earthly powers, such as the Romans and their underlings ; 
and Dives and his five brothers are the Herods: (1) Herod the Great, 


KVI. 19, 20.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 3901 


(2) Archelaus, (3) Philip, (4) Antipas, (5) Agrippa I., (6) Agrippa 11. Father, 
sons, and grandsons are thus all put together as brothers for simplification. It 
is a natural consequence of such an interpretation as this that the parable is 
assumed to be the invention of a later age, and to have been wrongly attributed 
to Christ. It is difficult to believe that He could have wished to suggest any 
such meaning. Moreover, this interpretation destroys the connexion with the 
context. 


19. “AvOpwros 8€ tis tv motors. “Now a certain man was 
rich” is less probable than “* Now there was a certain rich man” 
comp. ver. I, xiii, 11. Note the rues. 

moppupav kal Bucoov. The former for the upper garment, the 
latter for the under. Both were very costly. The former means 
first the muvex, secondly the dye made from it (1 Mac. iv. 23), and 
then the fabric dyed with it (Mk. xv. 17, 20). Similarly, Bvocos is 
first Egyptian flax, and then the fine linen made from it (Exod. 
XXVi. I, 31, 36; Ezek. xvi. 10, xxvii. 1). The two words are com- 
bined Prov. XXxi, 22: Comp. Rev. xVill, 12, 16. For edppatvopevos 
comp. xii. 19, xv. 23, 29: Aapampas occurs nowhere else in bibl. 
Grk. 

20. dvopatt Adpatos. For évémari see on v. 27: the expression 
is freq. in Lk. Nowhere else does Christ give a name to any 
character in a parable. That this signifies that the name was 
‘written in heaven,” while that of the rich man was not, is far- 
fetched. ‘Tertullian urges the name as proof that the narrative is 
not a parable but history, and that the scene in Hades involves his 
doctrine that the soul is corporeal (De Anzmd, vii.).2 It is possible 
that the name is a later addition to the parable, to connect it with 
Lazarus of Bethany. He was one who “ went to them from the 
dead,” and still they did not repent. As he was raised from the 
dead just about this time, so far as we can determine the chrono- 
logy, there may be a reference to him. But it is more probable 
that the name suggests the helplessness of the beggar; and some 
name was needed (ver. 24). Tradition has given the name Nineuis 
to the rich man. The theory that the story of the raising of 
Lazarus has grown out of this parable is altogether arbitrary. 

€BéBAnto pds Toy TUAGva attod. Not “had been flung at his 
gate,” as if contemptuous roughness were implied. In late Greek 
Badrew often loses the notion of violence, and means simply “ lay, 
place”: v.37; Jn. v. 7, xii. 6, xviii. 11, xx. 25, 27, xxi. 6; Jas. 
iil, 3; Num. xxii. 38. By Aare is meant a large gateway or 
portico, whether part of the house or not (Acts x. 17, xii, 14; Mt 
xxvi. 71; 2 Chron. iil. 7; Zeph. ii. 14). It indicates the grandeur 
of the house. 


1 Jésus se serait-tl abaissé a de paretlles personalités ? asks Godet, with some 
Treason. 

2 Ambrose also takes it as history: Marratio magis quam parabola videtur, 
quando etiam nomen exprimitur (Migne, xv. 1768). 


392 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVI. 20-22. 


et\kwpévos. The verb occurs here only in bibl. Grk., but is 
common in medical writers, especially in the pass., “ be ulcerated.” 


The irregular augment, instead of the usual 7\xwyévos, is well attested 
here, and perhaps arose from analogy with €\xw. Comp. xateipydcaro (Rom, 
xv. 18). WH. ii. App. p. 1613; Greg. Prodeg. p. 121. 


21. émbupav xoptacOijvar. This does not imply (Iren. ii. 34. 1) 
that his desire was not gratified. His being allowed to remain 
there daily, and his caring to remain there daily, rather indicates 
that he did get the broken meat. He shared with the dogs (Mk. 
vii. 28). But perhaps it does imply that what was given to him did 
not satisfy his hunger. Some authorities insert from xv. 16 kat 
ovdeis édidou aire, ef nemo illi dabat, which even asa gloss seems to 
be false. 

The silence of Lazarus throughout the parable is very im- 
pressive. He never murmurs against God’s distribution of 
wealth, nor against the rich man’s abuse of it, in this world. And 
in Hades he neither exults over the change of relations between 
himself and Dives, nor protests against being asked to wait upon 
him in the place of torment, or to go errands for him to the visible 
world. 

GAA Kal ot xUves. “Nay, even the dogs.” This shows his 
want and his helplessness. Not only was his hunger unsatisfied, 
but even the dogs came and increased his misery. He was scantily 
clad, and his sores were not bound up; and he was unable to drive 
away the unclean dogs when they came to lick them. The sugges- 
tion that the dogs were kinder to him than the rich man was, is 
probably not intended ; although the main point of vv. 20, 21 is to 
continue the description of Dives rather than to make a contrast 
to him. Here was a constant opportunity of making a good use 
of his wealth, and he did not avail himself of it. 


ér&etxov. ‘* Licked the surface of.” Here only in bibl. Greek. The 
reading awéAetxov has very little authority. For ddd xal comp, xii. 7, 
xxiv. 22. 


22. This verse serves to connect the two scenes of the parable. 
The reversal of the positions of the two men is perhaps intimated 
in the fact that Lazarus dies first. The opportunity of doing good 
to him was lost before the rich man died, but the loss was not 
noticed. 

drevexOjvar attov.. “His sould was carried,” a Joco alieno in 
patriam. Clearly we are not to understand that what never hap- 
pened to anyone before happened to bim, and that body and soul 
were both translated to Hades. In saying that he died (dzo@aveiv) 
the severance of soul and body is implied. “And the fact that his 
burial is not mentioned is no proof that it is not to be understood 


XVI. 22, 23.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 393 


Jesus would scarcely have shocked Jewish feeling by the revolting 
idea that close to human habitations a corpse was left unburied. 
In each case the feature which specially characterized the death is 
mentioned. See Aug. De Civ. Dei, xxi. 10. 2. 

iS tOv &yyé\wv. The transition was painless and happy. A 
Targum on Cantic. iv. 12 says that the souls of the righteous are 
carried to paradise by Angels. Comp. the Aeroupyixa rvevpara 
of Heb. i. 14 and the dyyeAou Aevrovpyot of Philo. But zt is no 
purpose of the parable to give information about the unseen world. 
The general principle is maintained that bliss and misery after 
death are determined by conduct previous to death; but the 
details of the picture are taken from Jewish beliefs as to the con- 
dition of souls in Sheol, and must not be understood as con- 
firming those beliefs. The properties of bodies are attributed to 
souls in order to enable us to realize the picture. 

eis Tov KoATov “ABpadp. This is not the objective genitive, 
“the bosom which contained Abraham,” but the subjective, 
“that in which Abraham received Lazarus.” Comp. Mt. viii. 11. 
Lazarus in Sheol reposes with his head on Abraham’s breast, as a 
child in his father’s lap, and shares his happiness. Comp. Jn. 
i. 18. The expression is not common in Jewish writings; but 
Abraham is sometimes represented as welcoming the penitent into 
paradise. Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. p. 280. Comp. otrw yap rafdvras 
(v.2. Oavovras) jpas ABpadp cal “IoadK xat*TaxnP trodéfovrat (4 Mac. 
xiii. 17). Such expressions as “go to one’s fathers” (Gen. 
xv. 15), “lie with one’s fathers” (Gen. xlvii. 30), “be gathered to 
one’s fathers” (Judg. ii. 10), and “sleep with one’s fathers” 
(1 Kings i. 21), apply to death only, and contain no clue as to the 
bliss or misery of the departed. ‘Abraham’s bosom” does con- 
tain this. It is not a synonym for paradise; but to repose on 
Abraham’s bosom is to be in paradise, for Abraham is there (Jn. 
viii. 56: Diptychs of the Dead in the Liturgy of S. James). 

kat étdpyn. It is not the contrast between the magnificence of 
his funeral (of which nothing is stated) and the /ac& of funeral for 
Lazarus (of which nothing is stated) that is to be marked, but the 
contrast between mere burial in the one case and the ministration 
of Angels in the other. 


Some authorities seem to have omitted the «al before év 7@ ddy and to 
have joined these words with érdgy. Vulg. has et sepultus est in inferno: 
elevans autem oculos suos. Aug. has both arrangements. Comp. Jn. 
xiii. 30, 31 for a similar improbable shifting of a full stop in some texts, 
Other examples Greg. Proleg. p. 181. 


28. kai €v to adn. “In Hades,” the receptacle of a// the 
departed until the time of final judgment, and including both 
paradise and Gehenna. That Hades does not mean “hell” as 


394 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL. 23, 24 


a place of punishment is manifest from Acts ii. 27, 31; Gen 
XXXVil. 35, xlil. 38, xliv. 29; Job xiv. 13, xvii, ©) teu lmae 
Hades includes a place of punishment is equally clear from this 
passage. In the Psalms of Solomon Hades is mentioned only in 
connexion with the idea of punishment (xiv. 6, xv. 11, xvi. 2). 
See Suicer, s.v. The distinction between Hades and Gehenna is 
one of the many great advantages of RV. Dives “lifts up his 
eyes,” not to look for help, but to learn the nature of his changed 
condition. 

indpxwv.é€v Bacdvors. Torment is now his habitual condition : 
not dv, but drdpxwv. That he is punished for his heartless neglect 
of great opportunities of benevolence, and not simply for being 
rich, is clear from the position of Abraham, who was rich. Comp. 
péyas yap Yux7ns ayov Kal Kivdvvos év aiwviw Bacdvw Kelpwevos Tots 
mapaBao. tiv évtoAjv tod @eot (4 Mac. xiii. 14); and contrast 
Sixaiwy de Yuxal ev yxepl Ocod, Kal od py ayrat aitav Bacavos 
(Wisd. iii. 1).  Luxurtoso carere deliciis poena est (Ambr). 

opa “ABpadu. The Jews believed that Gehenna and paradise 
are close to one another: Edersh. Ast. of Jewish (Nation, p. 432, 
ed. 1896. We need not suppose that the parable teaches us 
to believe this. The details of the picture cannot be insisted 
upon. 

&md paxpdbev. The dzd is pleonastic, and marks a late use, when the 
force of the adverbial termination has become weakened: Mt. xxvii. 51; 
Mk. v. 6, xiv. 54, xv. 40, etc. In LXX we have dé dmicGev (freq. in 1 and 
2 Sam.), dd érdvwOev, dad mpwifev: and in Aq. awd dpxnev and amd 
KukAdOev. 

With xoArros comp. ludria of a single garment (Acts xviii. 6; Jn. xiii. 4, 
xix. 23) and yduor of a single wedding (xii. 36). We have similar plurals in 
late class. Grk. 


24. Mdrep “ABpadp., He appeals to their relationship, and to 
his fatherly compassion. Will not Abraham take pity on one of 
his own sons? Comp. Jn. viii. 53. Note the characteristic xai 
avtos (see on i. 17, v. 14). The wrjoas implies raising his 
voice, in harmony with dd paxpo0er. 

mréupov AdLapoy. Not that he assumes that Lazarus is at his 
beck and call, although Lange thinks that this is “the finest 
masterstroke of the parable” that Dives unconsciously retains his 
arrogant attitude towards Lazarus. See also his strange explana- 
tion of the finger-drop of water (Z. of C.i. p. 507). On earth 
Dives was not arrogant; he did not drive Lazarus from his gate; 
but neglectful. In Hades he is so humbled by his pain that he is 
willing to receive alleviation from anyone, even Lazarus. 

iva Bday TS Gkpoy tod SaxtUAou attod GSatos. The smallest 
alleviation will be welcome. On earth no gnjoyment was too 
extravagant: now the niost trifling is worth imploring. 


XVI. 24-26.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 395 


With the part. gen. S8aros comp. Bader Thy SaxtuAoy Toy Sekiby aed Tod 
éaalov (Lev. xiv. 16). To understand t: and make édardés 7: nom. to Bay 
is an improbable const. See Win. xxx. 8. c, p. 252. 


dduvGpat ev TH pAoyt tavry. “I am in anguish in this flame” 
of insatiable desires and of remorse: a prelude to the yéevva Tod 
mdpos (Mt. v. 22). For édvvapar see on il. 48. 

25. Téxvov. He does not resent the appeal to relationship: 
the refusal is as gentle as it is decided. The rich man cannot fail 
to see the reasonableness of what he experiences. 

amékaBes. “Thou didst receive zz ful/.” This seems to be 
the meaning of the azo-. Nothing was stored up for the future: 
comp. azéxewv, vi. 24; Mt. vi. 2, 5,16. Note the prjcOnr. It is 
only in the mythological Hades that there is a river of Lethe, 
drowning the memory of the past. 

ta dya0d cov. Herein also was fatal error. He had no idea 
of any other good things, and he kept these to himself. 

kat AdLapos suite a kaxé. There is no aired. His evil 
things were not his own, but he accepted them as from God, 
while the rich man took his good things as possessions for which 
he had no account to render. Comp. vv. 11, 12. 

viv 8é &8e. Contrast of time and place: “But xow here.” 
The 6 d€ of TR. has scarcely any authority. The same corruption 
is found 1 Cor. iv. 2. Comp. ov« éorw & adov Lyrica tpudyv 
(Ecclus. xiv. 16). There is, however, no hint that during their 
lives Dives had been sufficiently rewarded for any good that he had 
done, and Lazarus sufficiently punished for any evil that he had 
done. And there is also no justification of the doctrine that to 
each man is allotted so much pleasure_and so much pain; and 
that those who have their full allowance of pleasure in this world 
cannot have any in the world to come. Abraham’s reply must be 
considered in close relation to the rich man’s request. Dives had 
not asked to be freed from his punishment. He accepted that as 
just. He had asked for a slight alleviation, and in a way which 
involved an interruption of the bliss of Lazarus. Abraham replies 
that to interfere with the lot of either is both unreasonable and 
impossible. Dives had unbroken luxury, and Lazarus unbroken 
suffering, in the other world. ‘There can be no break in the pangs 
of Dives, or in the bliss of Lazarus, now. 


éSuvacat. An intermediate form between édurdecat and dduvG. Such 
things belong to the popular Greek of the time. Comp. xavyaoa: (Rom. 
ii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 7), kaTaxauxadoar (Rom. xi. 18), and see on ¢dyecas and 
wlecat (Lk. xvii. 8). 


26. év mact toutas. Ln his omnibus (Vulg.). The émi (A, etc.) 
for ¢v (8 BL) is a manifest correction. While ver. 25 shows that 
on equitable grounds no alleviation of the lot of Dives is admis- 


396 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XWI. 26-30. 


sible, ver. 26 shows that the particular kind of alleviation asked for 
is impossible. Can it mean, “In all these regions, from end to end”? 

Xdopa péya eompixtar. ‘Has been and remains fixed.” 
Evidence is lacking to show that the Jews pictured the two parts 
of Hades as divided by a chasm. Here only in bibl. Grk. is 
xéopa found: not Num. xvi. 30. 


Chaos magnum firmatum est (Vulg. f), chaus magnum confirmatus est (d), 
chaos magnus firmatus est (1). For this use of chaos comp. Postta est mth 
regia celo : Possidet alter aquas, alter inane chaos(Ovid, Fast. iv. 599). Bentley 
conjectured chasma, the ma having been lost in magnum and chas expanded 
into chaos. This conjecture finds support in two MSS. of Vulg., M having 
cane and Y chasmagnum. Jerome would be likely to correct chaos into 
chasma. 


Stas... ph Suvavrar. Not, “so that they cannot” (AV.); 
but, “ in order that they may not be able.” 

pndé. “Nor yet”: this would be still less permissible. The 
ot before éxetOev is probably not genuine, but we may understand 
a new subject. Groups from each side are supposed to contem- 
plate crossing ; not one group to cross and recross. 

27. But perhaps there is no xdaoua between paradise and 
the other world ; and Dives makes another request, which, if less 


selfish than the first, is also less humble. It implies that he has 


scarcely had a fair chance. If God had warned him sufficiently, 
he would have €scaped this place of torment. 

28. Siapaptépyta adtoits. ‘‘ May bear witness successfully,” 
right through to a good issue. But the dia- need not mean more 
than “thoroughly, earnestly” (Acts ii. 40, Vili. 25, X. 42, Xviil. 5, 
XX. 21, 23, 24, xxiii. 11, xxviii. 23). Elsewhere in N.T. only five 
times, but freq. in LXX. That any five persons then living, 
whether Herods, or sons of Annas, or among the audience, are 
here alluded to, is most improbable. That the request is meant 
to illustrate the Pharisees’ craving for signs is more possible: and 
the lesson that the desire to warn others from vicious courses may 
come too late is perhaps also included. But the simplest _e 
tion of the request is that it prepares the way for the moral of the 
parable,—¢he duly of making use of existing 0260 Rennes 

29. dxovcdtacav autav. LVemo cogitur. Auditu fideli salvamur, 
non apparitionibus. Herodes, audire non cupiens, miraculum non 
cernit (Beng.). Wonders may impress a worldly mind for the 
moment; but only a will freely submitting itself to moral control 
can avail to change the heart. 

80. Odxi, mdtep “ABpadp. Not, “No, they will not repent for 
Moses and the Prophets,” which Abraham has not asserted ; but, 
“No, that is not enough.” He speaks from his own experience. 


It is better to take dad vexp&v with wopev07 than with 7s. Vulg. is as 
amphibolous as the Greek : sz guzs ex mortuis terit ad cos, See oni, & 


el 


XVI. 80, 81.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 397 


petavonaovo. “They will repent.” Not, “they will give all 
to the poor,” or “they will leave all and become as Lazarus.” 
There is no hint that being rich is sinful, or that the poor are sure of 
salvation. In ver. 28 he did not say that wealth had ruined himself. 

81. Ei... od dkovovow. “If, as matters now stand, they 
are refusing to hear.” We go beyond the tenour of the reply 
when we make it mean that “a far mightier miracle than you 
demand would be ineffectual for producing a far slighter effect.” 
Does ék vexpov avacrh imply “a far mightier miracle” than do 
vexpov mopevdn? And does weoOyoovra imply “a far slighter 
effect” than peravonoovow ? “ Persuaded” obviously means “ per- 
suaded to repent”; and one who “goes from the dead” to warn 
the living must “rise from the dead.” By this conclusion Christ 
once more rebukes the demand for a sign. Those who ask for it 
have all that they need for the ascertainment of the truth; and the 
sign if granted would not produce‘tonviction. Saul was not led to 
repentance when he saw Samuel at Endor, nor were the Pharisees 
when they saw Lazarus come forth from the tomb. The Pharisees 
tried to put Lazarus to death and to explain away the resurrection 
of Jesus. For allegorical interpretations of the parable see Trench, 
Parables, p. 470, toth ed.} 


In otk dxovovowy the negative belongs to the verb so as almost to form one 
word, and is not influenced by the el: ‘‘If they disregard.” Comp. xi. 8, 
xii. 26, xviii. 4. The pres. indic. represents the supposition as contempor- 
aneous. Note the change from el with pres, indic. to édv with aor. subjunc. 
The latter is pure hypothesis. 


’ THE IDEA OF HADES OR SHEOL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


It is surprising how very little advance there is in O.T., respecting concep- 
tions of the unseen world, upon Greek mythology. It is scarcely an exaggera- 
tion to say that, until about B.c. 200, the Jewish Sheol is essentially the same 
in conception as the Hades of Greek poetry. There are no moral or spiritual 
distinctions in it. Good and bad alike are there, and are apparently much in 
the same condition. Moreover, there is no thought of either of them rising 
again. In some places, Zosszbly, Sheol or Hades is merely a synonym for the 
grave or death, which receives good and bad alike, and retains them: e.g. Gen. 
XXXVii. 35, xlii. 38; 1 Sam. ii. 6. But in passages in which the unseen world 
of spirits is plainly meant, the absence of the religious element is remarkable. 
Nay, in one way the bad are better off than the good ; for while the just have lost 
the joys which were the reward of their righteousness, the wicked have ceased 
to be troubled by the consequences of their iniquity. See Davidson on Job iii. 
16-19. Sheol is a place of rest ; but also of silence, gloom, and ignorance. In 
the only passage in which the word occurs in Ecclesiastes we are told that there 
is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou 
goest” (ix. 10). Those who have gone thither return no more, and none escape 
it (Job vii. 9, 10, x. 21, 22, xx. 9). 1t is a Jand of forgetfulness, in which there 


1 Near the end of the Koran are two passages worth comparing. (Sale’s 
Koran, chs. cii., civ. ). 


398 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVII 1. 


s no more remembrance of God or possibility of serving Him (Ps. vi. 5, xxx. 9, 
Ixxxviil. 12; comp. Is. xxxviii. 11, 18). And it is insatiable (Prov. i. 12, xxvii. 
20, xxx. 16; comp. Is. v. 14). In some Psalms there is some trace of hope for 
eternal life in God in the other world (xlix. 15), but not of hope for 1 esurrection. 
In xvii. 15 “‘ when I awake” probably does not mean awake from death, but 
from sleep. It is the dazly renewal of communion with God that is desired. 
In Is, xxv. 8, and still more in Is. xxvi. 19, hope in a resurrection from Sheol is 
expressed ; and in Dan. xii. 2 we reach the idea of resurrection with rewards 
and punishments. 

Side by side with the hope of a resurrection (2 Mac. xii. 43-45, xiv. 46) 
comes the belief that Sheol is only an intermediate state, at any rate for tke 
righteous (2 Mac. vil. 9, II, 14, 36, 37; voch li.): and along with the idea 
of a resurrection to rewards and punishments comes the idea that there is 1e- 
tribution in Sheol itself, and consequently a separation of the righteous from 
the wicked (Zzoch xxii.). But the idea of rising again to be punished does not 
seem to have prevailed. The view rather was that only the righteous were 
raised, while the wicked remained for ever in Sheol (Zxoch \xiii. 8-10, xcix. 
11). In this way Hades becomes practically the same as Gehenna (fs. So/. 
xiv. 6, xv. II, xvi. 2). In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus there is 
nothing to show whether Hades is intermediate or final: but the doctrine of its 
being a place of retribution, with a complete separation of the righteous from 
the wicked, could hardly be more clearly marked. In the Talmud, Sheol is 
identical with Gehenna, just as in popular English ‘‘ hell” is always a place of 
punishment, and generally of final punishment. See DB? art. ‘‘ Hell”; 
Herzog, PREZ.? art. Hades; Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 168. 


XVII. 1-10. Four sayings of Christ. These are, The Sin of 
Causing Others to Sin (1, 2); The Duty of Forgiveness (3, 4); 
The Power of Faith (5, 6); and, The Insufficiency of Works 
(7-10). They have no connexion with the much longer utter- 
ances which precede them. Some of them are given by Mt. and 
Mk. in other positions. And the four sayings appear to be with- 
out connexion one with another. It is possible to make them 
into two pairs, as RV. does by its paragraphs. But the connexions 
between the first and second, and between the third and fourth, 
are too uncertain to be insisted upon. 

1, 2. The Sin of Causing Others to Sin. These two verses are 
found in reverse order, and somewhat differently worded, Mt. 
XViii. 6, 7, and ver. 2 is found Mk. ix. 42. 

1. *AvévSextov. Here only in bibl. Grk., and rare elsewhere, excepting 
in writers who knew this passage. In xiii, 33 we have évééxerat, from which 
this comes ; and the intermediate évdexrov éort is found in Apollonius. The 
meaning is ‘‘it is unallowable, it cannot be,” ov« évdéxerat. 

The gen. in Tod . . . wn édGciv may be variously explained, but best as 
an expression of deszgz, implied in what is not allowed, a construction of 
which Lk. is very fond: see on ii. 21. Win. xliv. 4. b, p. 408. Others refer 
it to the notion of hindering implied in dvévdexrov (Burton, § 405); while 
Meyer makes avév. a substantive on which the gen. depends, ‘‘ There is an 
impossibility of offences” not coming. Here only does oxdvdaXov occur in 
Lk. It isa late form of cxavdddyOpov (Aristoph. Ach. 687), the “‘ bait-stick ” 
in a trap, and combined the ideas of ensnaring and tripping up. It is a bibl 
and eccles. word, freq. in LXX. 


mA}v oval 8¢ of épxerat, See on vi. 24, and comp. xxii, 22. 


XVIL 2,3.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 399 


2. ducitehet ata. “It is well for him, is worth his while” 
lit. “it pays the taxes (Aver ra zéAy), repays the outlay.” Here 
only in N.T., but found Tobit iii. 6; Ecclus. xx. 10, 14, xxix. 14, 
and quite classical. 


In Tertullian (Ado. Marcion. iv. 35) we have an insertion from Mt. xxvi. 

24: expedisse ed, si natus non fuisset, aut s¢ molino saxo ad collum deligato, etc. 

A similar mixture of texts is found i in Clem. Rom. (Cor. xlvi.), who has éva 
Tay éxhext&y for Toy puxpay TotTwv eva. 


AiBos pudixds. “A stone fit for a mill” (uvAn). Mt. xviii. 6 
and Mk. ix. 42 we have ptAos dévixés for AiBos puhixds. Neither 
occurs in LXX. 

kat éppirrat, Mk. has @eBAyra. The change from pres. to 
perf. is graphic: “It is good for him if a millstone is hanged 
about his neck and he has been hurled.” As to the double pp see 
Greg. Proleg. p. 121. 


7. ‘‘Rather than”: see small print on xv. 7, and comp, AvotreAet won 
droGaveiy F Sp. (Tobit iii. 6). Such L plea are common in LXX (Gen. 
xlix. 12; Jon. iv. 3, 8; Tobit xii. 8; Ecclus. xx. 25, xxii. 15, etc.), bat are 
found also in class. Grk. xahdrv Td a fv 9 ov dbNlus (Menander). Nothing 
is to be understood with fa, such as “‘ rather than (to remain alive) in order 
to.” It is the late use of tva with the telic force lost. Win. xliv. 8. c¢, p. 
424; Burton, §214. Comp. Mt. v. 29, 30; 1 Cor. iv. 3. 


tiv pixpdv tovTwv éva. As the saying is addressed to the dis- 
ciples (ver. 1), it is unlikely that the whole body of the disciples 
is included in “these little ones.” It is more natural to under- 
stand it of the more insignificant among them (comp. vii. 28), or 
those who were young in the faith, or possibly children. The &a 
comes last with emphasis. To lead even one astray is an awful 
responsibility. 

mpocéxete éautois. These words come better as a conclusion 
to the previous warning than as an introduction to the exhortation 
which follows. They are analogous to “He that hath ears to 
hear, let him hear.” For the constr. see on xii. 1. For instances 
in which there is discrepancy as to the division of verses see Greg. 
Proleg. p. 175- 

8, 4. §The Duty of Forgiveness. Those who connect this 
saying with the one which precedes it, make an unforgiving spirit 
to be set forth as a common way of causing others to stumble. 
Others regard it as an @ fortiori argument. If we must avoid 
doing evil to others, much more must we forgive the evil which 
they do to us. A better link is found in the severity of oz. 1 and 
2, “when thou sinnest against another,” and the tenderness of 
pv. 3 and 4, “when others sin against thee.” 


The dé, which A etc. insert after édy, is perhaps an attempt to mark a 
contrast between the two sayings and thus link them. Or it may come from 


400 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIL 3-6. 


Mt. xviii. 15: om. SBDLX, Latt. Boh. Aeth. Arm. Goth. Neither here 
nor Mt. xviii. 15 is the els sé, which D and some Latin authorities insert after 
Gudpry, genuine: om. § A BL XA, Cod. Am. Cod. Brix. Syr. Goth. Never- 
theless, what follows shows that offences els o¢ are specially meant. 


émutipnoov. The tenderness is not to be weakness, The fault 
is not to be passed over without notice (Lev. xix. 17). 

4, émtaxis tis jpépas. In Peter’s question (Mt. xviii. 21, 22) 
there is no r7s 7jépas, which is genuine here after the first érraxis 
only: and there is no peravod. See on xv. 7. The “seven 
times” is of course not to be taken literally. Comp. “Seven 
times a day do I praise thee” (Ps. cxix. 164). Unlimited forgive- 
ness is prescribed. But too much meaning is put into A¢yor, 
when it is explained to mean that the mere exfression of repent- 
ance is to suffice. Professed repentance may be ostentatiously 
unreal. 

5, 6. The Power of Faith. There is no sign of connexion with 
what precedes. The fact that we have rods pafyrads in ver. 1 and 
oi ddaro\o here points to different occasions. Mt. connects this 
saying of Christ with the Apostles’ question, ‘‘ Why could not we 
cast it out?” (xvii. 19, 20). Mk. has a similar saying after the 
withering of the barren fig tree (xi. 23). Marcion omitted vv. 5-10. 

5. 76 kuptw. See on v. 17 and vii. 13. The expression has 
point here. The Apostles ask the Lord who had given them their 
office to supply them with what was necessary for the discharge of 
that office. 

Npdobes Hptv wiotw. ‘Give us faith in addition: add it to the 
gifts already bestowed.” The “faith” here meant is faith in 
Christ’s promises. It is very forced to make it refer to what pre- 
cedes; the faith that enables one to forgive a brother seven times 
in a day. Power to fulfil that duty would have been otherwise 
expressed. See Sanday on Rom. i. 5 and additional note pp. 31-34. 


6. Etéyere . . . ééyeteav. Irregular sequence, which has produced the 
reading el elxere (D EGH) asacorrection. In the protasis the supposition 
is left open: in the apodosis it is implicitly denied. See Moulton’s note 5. 
Win. p. 383. We have a further change of tense in bajxovgev dy, implying 
that the obedience would a¢ once have followed the command. Comp. Xen. 
Anab, v. 8. 13. 


és Kékkov owvdrews. It is not a question of additional faith. 
Is there genuine faith to any extent? See on xiii. 18. 

TH guxapivw. At the present time both the white and the 
black mulberry are common in Palestine; and in Greece the latter 
is still called cvxapwéa. It is not certain that the ovxdpuos here 
is a different tree from the ovxomopéa (xix. 4).1 But in any case 

1 «Two points may be urged in favour of those who identify the two trees: 


(1) In LXX every instance in which the Hebrew has Shzkmin the Greek has 
cvxdpavos, although the fig, and not the mulberry, is certainly intended. (2) As 


XVII. 6-8. ] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 401 


both are different from the English sycomore, which is a maple. 
The ovxauwos is mentioned 1 Chron. xxvii. 28; 2 Chron. i. 15, 
ix. 27; Ps, Ixxviii. 47; Is. ix. 10. In Mt. xvii. 20 we have 7d Sper 
rovTw for 7} cvKapivw tovrn, the saying being uttered just after the 
descent from the Mount of Transfiguration. Comp. Mt. xxi. 21||. 
Here Christ’s reply seems to indicate that it is faith in His promise 
that they should work miracles that is desired by the Apostles. 

To treat the saying as a parable, and make the tree mean the 
Kingdom of God and the sea the heathen world, is fanciful. 

7-10. §The Insufficiency of Works, or, the Parable of the 
Unprofitable Servant. The attempts to find a connexion between 
this and the preceding saying are forced and unsatisfactory. Ob- 
viously these four verses are not concerned with miracles, which 
cannot be meant by 7a Sarayfévra tyiv (ver. 10). It is the 
ordinary duties of the Christian life that are meant. See the illus- 
tration in Hermas (Sc. v. 2. 1-11), and comp. Seneca, De Benef. 
ili. 18. 

7. Tis S¢ é€ Syuay. There is no need to seek for explanations 
as to why Jesus speaks to “the poor Apostles” as if they had 
slaves who ploughed for them, or to point out that Zebedee had 
had hired servants (Mk. i. 20). There is no evidence that these 
words were addressed to the Twelve; and the words almost 
necessarily imply that they were addressed to a mixed audience of 
well-to-do persons. For tis ef éuav see on xi. 5, 6. 

Ed0éws: belongs to wapeAOwy rather than to épe?, as is shown 
by the pera ztatra afterwards, which balances «i@éws: “Come 
straightway and sit down to eat.” Wic. Tyn. Cov. Cran. Rhem. 
RV. with Vulg. and Luth. adopt this arrangement. AV. follows 
Gen. with “say unto him by and by,” where “ by and by” has its 
original meaning of “immediately”: AV. of xxi. 9; Mt. xiii. 21; 
Mk. vi. 25. Comp. “presently,” Mt. xxvi. 53; 1 Sam. i 16 
(T. L. O. Davies, Bible English, p. 109; Lft. On Revision, p. 196, 
2nd ed.; Trench, Ox the A.V. of N.T. p. 48). 

tapehQav dvdmece. “Come forward and sit down to meat.” 
This use of zapépxopae is classical, but in N T. is peculiar to Lk. 
(xii 37). Comp. the insertion Acts xxiv. 7 and 2 Chron. xxv. 7 A. 


8. ‘Erofpacov tl Seumvijcw . . . Staxdver. Change from aor. to pres. 
‘* Prepare once for all. . . continue to serve.” With rl deumvijow comp. 
Mt. x. 19: in class, Grk. we should have 6 71, as in Acts ix. 6. 

The forms ¢dyeou and wlecw are analogous to édvvacar (xvi. 25) and 
8ivacar (Mt. v. 36). They belong to the popular Greek of the time, but are 
not quite constant; Mk. ix. 22 we have dvvp. See Veitch, s.v.; Win. xv. 





to the mulberry it has yet to be shown that it was then known in Palestine; 
and further the mulberry is more easily plucked up by the roots than any other 
tree of the same size in the country, and the thing is oftener done” (Groser, 7rees 
and Plants in the Bible, pp. 121, 123). : 


26 


402 THE GOSPF, ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVII 8-1L 


pp. 109, 110; WH. if. p. 304. Both ¢dyeoa: and wlecat are found Ruth 
li, 9, 14; Ezek. xii. 18. 


With gee xdpevy comp. 1 Tim. i, 12; 2 Tim. i. 3; Heb. xii. 28: the 
expression is classical. The od Sox of A D, Vulg. etc. is an insertion. 


10. oftws kal duets, Stay romonte dvta. A purely hypothetical 
case. Nothing is gained by placing a full stop at duets. With 
7a StataxGévra ipiv comp. 76 diateraypévov tyiv (iii. 13; Acts 
xxiii. 31). 

dxpeto. Not “vile” as in 2 Sam. vi. 22, nor “good for 
nothing” as in Ep. Jer. 15, the only places in which the word 
occurs in LXX; but “unprofitable,” because nothing has been 
gained by them for their master. He has got no more than his 
due. Comp. Mt. xxv. 30, the only other passage in N.T. in which 
the word is found. That God does not need man’s service is not 
the point. Nor are the rewards which He gives in return for man’s 
service here brought into question. The point is that man can 
make no just c/azm for having done more than was due. Miser 
est guem Dominus servum inutilem appellat (Mt. xxv. 30); deatus 
gui se ipse (Beng.). Syr-Sin. omits dxpetou 


XVII. 11-XIX. 28. The Third Period of the Journey. 


11-19. Here begins the last portion of the long section (ix. 
51-xix. 28), for the most part peculiar to Lk., which we have 
called ‘‘the Journeyings towards Jerusalem”: see on ix. 51. For 
the third time (ix. 51, 52, xiii. 22) Lk. tells us that Jerusalem is 
the goal, but we have no means of knowing whether this represents 
the beginning of a third journey distinct from two previous 
journeys. Marked breaks may be made at the end of xiii. 35 
and xvil. 10. But we have no data for determining what the 
chronology of the different divisions is; and the geography is 
almost as indistinct as the chronology. This last portion, however, 
brings us once more (x. 38) to Bethany, and to the time which 
preceded the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. 

11-19. §The Healing of the Ten Lepers. The gratitude of 
the Samaritan leper illustrates the special theme of this Gospel. 
The opening of the narrative indicates an Aramaic source: but 
that it is placed here “to contrast man’s thanklessness to God 
with the sort of claim to thanks from God, which is asserted by 
spiritual pride,” is not probable. 


11. év t@ wopeverar. ‘‘ As He was on His way.” See cu iii, 21 and 
comp. ix. 51, the beginning of this main portion, where the a nstruction is 


XVI 11, 12.] JOURNEYINGS TOWAR)DS JERUSALEM 403 


similar, The aéréy is probably a gloss (om. 8 BL), but a correct gloss. As 
no one else is mentioned it is arbitrary to translate ‘‘as ¢hey were on their 
way.” Latin texts all take it as singular: dum iret, cum iret, dum vadit, 
dum iter faceret. So also Syr-Sin., which omits éyévero, 

Kat avtés Sijpxeto. The apodosis of éyévero: see on ¥. 12, 14, Vi. 
20; alsoonii. 15. There is no emphasis on airés. 


Sia pécov. This is the reading of 8B D L, accepted by Tisch. 
Treg. WH. and RV. It means “through what lies between,” ze. 
along the frontier, or simply, “between.” This is the only 
passage in N.T. in which oa ¢. acc. has its original local sig- 
nification. Even if 6a pécov were the right reading, we ought 
to translate it “between” and not “through the midst of.” This 
use is found in Xenophon: 61a pécov Se fet ToUTwy rotapds (Anad. 
i. 4. 4), of a river flowing between two walls; and in Plato: 7 76 
tovtwv O7 dia péecov ddpev (Leg. vii. p. 805 D), of an intermediate 
course. “Through the midst of Samaria and Galilee” would 
imply that Jesus was moving /vom Jerusalem, whereas we are 
expressly told that He was journeying ‘owards it. Samaria, as 
being on the right, would naturally be mentioned first if He was 
going eastward along the frontier between Samaria and Galilee 
possibly by the route which ends at Bethshean, near the Jordan. 
In order to avoid Samaritan territory (ix. 52-55), He seems to 
have been making for Persea, as Jews often did in going from 
Galilee to Jerusalem. On the frontier He would be likely to meet 
with a mixed company of lepers, their dreadful malady having 
broken down the barrier between Jew and Samaritan. See Conder, 
Handbk, of B. p. 311; Tristram, Bible Places, p. 222; Eastern 
Customs, pp. 19, 21. In the leper-houses at Jerusalem Jews and 
Mahometans will live together at the present time. 

There is no doubt that ver. 11 forms acomplete sentence. To make 


from xal airés to Tadc\alas a parenthesis,and take drjvryoay as the 
apodosis of éyévero, is quite gratuitous clumsiness 


12, Séka Aewpoi GvSpes. Elsewhere we read of four (2 Kings 
vii. 3), but so large a company as ten was perhaps at that time 
unusual. Now it would be common, especially in this central 
region. These ten may have collected on hearing that Jesus was 
approaching. No meaning is to be sought in the number. 

€otycav moppwev. In accordance with the law, which the 
leper of v. 12 possibly did zot break: see notes there. The 
precise distance to be kept was not fixed by law, but by tradi- 
tion, and the statements about it vary. See Lev. xiii. 45, 46; 
Num. v. 2, and the evidence collected in Wetst. The adv. occurs 
Heb. xi. 13 and often in LXX, esp. in Isaiah (x. 3, xiii. 5, 
XXXill. 13, 17, Xxxix. 3, etc.). On the authority of B F, WH. adopt 
dvéotynoay in the text, with éorncay in the margin. LK. is very 
fond of this compound. 


404. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVII. 13-18. 


13. kat adtol Rpav dovyy. They took the initiative. Here jpav 
povay agrees with wéppwber, just as in xvi. 24 g$wvycas agrees 
with a6 paxpober. Comp. erraipew puvnv (xi. 27) and tov 
pwviv (Gen. xxxix, 15, 18). This phrase occurs Acts iv. 24; 
Judg. xxi. 2; 1 Sam. xi. 4. For émortdra see on v. 5. 

14, kai i8dv. ‘And directly He saw”: which seems to imply 
that, until they cried out, He had not perceived who they were. 
This previous supernatural knowledge was not necessary. But 
He knows, without seeing or hearing, that they all were cleansed 
(ver. 17). This knowledge was necessary. 

emdeigate Eautods Tois tepedow. ‘Show yourselves to the 
priests” appointed for this purpose. Each of the ten would go 
to the priest near his own home. In v. 14 we have 7@ iepet, 


| there being then only one leper. The Samaritan would go to a 


priest of the temple on Mount Gerizim. 

év 7@ éwdyev. ‘Their faith was shown in their obedience to 
Christ’s command, and on their way the cure took place. As 
they were no longer companions in misery, the Jews would rejoice 
that the Samaritan turned back and left them. 

15. Gréotpefev. See on iv. 14 and vii. ro. Even Hahn 
follows Schleiermacher in referring this to the Samaritan’s return 
from the priest. In that case he would have zzevztably returned 
without the others. It was because he saw (i8év) that he was 
healed (not after he had been declared to be clean) that he came 
back to give thanks. The peta pwviis peydd\ns may mean that he 
still “stood afar off” (see on i. 42), as having not yet recovered 
the right to mix with others: for mapa& tos médasg (see on Vii. 38) 
need not imply close proximity. But if the loud voice be only an 
expression of great joy, a man in the jubilation of such a cure 
would not be punctilious about keeping the exact distance, 
especially when he knew that he was no longer a leper. It is 
most improbable that he did not see that he was cleansed till the 
priest told him that he was. 

16. kal aidtés jv Xapapetryns. Here the airds has point: “and 
he was a S.” The only one who exhibited gratitude was a despised 
schismatic. That a// the others were Jews is not implied. 

17. dmoxpibets 8é 6 *Inoods. See small print on i. 19, p. 16. 
Here first we learn that Jesus was not alone; for His “answer” 
is addressed to the bystanders, and is a comment on the whole 
incident rather than a reply to the Samaritan. 

Odx of Séka. “ Were not Zhe ten,” etc.—all the ten who had 
asked Him to have mercy on them. The mod with emphasis at 
the end, like ov in ver. 8. These questions imply surprise, and 
surprise implies limitation of knowledge (vii. 9; Mt. viii. 10; 
Mk. vi. 6). 

18. This sentence also may be interrogative: so WH. and RV. 


XVII. 18-20.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM  4C5 


text. The eipé6ycav is not a mere substitute for joav: it marks 
or implies the discovery or notice of the quality in question (1 Pet. 
ii. 22; Rev. xiv. 5). 

é\Xoyevyjs. The classical word would be d\Ad¢duAos (Acts x. 
28) or dAXoeOv7js. But addAAoyevys is very freq. in LXX, especially 
of the heathen (Exod. xii. 43, xxix. 33, xxx. 33; Lev. xxii. 
10, etc.). 


The Samaritans were a mixed people, both as regards race and religion. 
They were Israelites who had been almost overwhelmed by the heathen 
colonists planted among them by the Assyrians. Those from Cuthah (2 Kings 
xvii. 24, 30) were probably the most numerous, for the Jews called the 
Samaritans Cuthites or Cutheans (Jos. Amt. ix. 14, 3, xi. 4. 4, 7. 2, xiii. 
9. 1). These heathen immigrants brought their idolatry with them, but 
gradually mixed with it the worship of Jehovah. Both as regards race and 
religion it was the Jewish element which grew stronger, while the heathen 
element declined. Refugees from Judza settled among them from time to 
time ; but we do not hear of fresh immigrants from Assyria. The religion at 
last became pure monotheism, with the Pentateuch as the law of worship and 
of life. But in race the foreign element no doubt predominated, although 
Christ’s use of dA\oyev7js does not prove this. He may be speaking with a 
touch of irony: ‘‘this man, who is commonly regarded as little better than a 
heathen.” See Schiirer, Jewzsh People in T. of J. C. ii. 1, pp. 6-8; Edersh. 
Hist. of Jewtsh Nation, pp. 249, 486, 499, ed. 1896; Derenbourg, Azs¢. 
de la Fal, i. p. 433; Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 6, xii. 5. 5. 


19. % mlotis cou cécwxéy ce. He did well to be thankful and 
publicly express his thankfulness; but he had contributed some- 
thing himself, without which he would not have been cured. 
Comp. viii. 48, xviil. 42. Others refer the saying to some benefit 
which the Samaritan received and which the nine lost, and explain 
it of moral and spiritual salvation. Comp. vii. 50, viii. 48, 50. 

20-37. The Coming of the Kingdom of God and of the Son 
of Man. The introductory verses (20-22) are peculiar to Lk. 
for the rest comp. Mt. xxiv. 23 ff.; Mk. xiii. 21 ff. 

20. “EmepwrnQeis. There is no evidence that the question of 
the Pharisees was asked in contempt. Jesus had taught that the 
Kingdom was at hand, and they ask when it may be expected. 
Perhaps they wanted to test Him. If He fixed an early date, 
and at that time there were no signs of the Kingdom, they would 
know what to think. His reply corrects such an idea. There will 
be no such signs as would enable a watcher to date the arrival. 
A spiritual Kingdom is slow in producing conspicuous material 
effects ; and it begins in ways that cannot be dated. 


With this rather loose use of ére for Sere in an indirect question comp. 
xii. 36; Mk. xiii. 4, 33, 35; Mt. xxiv. 3. Nowhere in N.T. is ézore found. 


tTapatnpycews. Here only in bibl. Grk. and not classical, 
although zaparypety is not rare either in N.T. or LXX, and occurs 
in medical writers of watching the symptoms of a disease (Hobart, 


406 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIL 20-22 


p. 153). It implies c/ose rather than sinister watching, although 
the latter sense occurs. See on xiv. 1. The interpretation cum 
multa pompa, cum regio splendore, fits neither the word nor the 
context. The meaning is that no close observation will be able 
to note the moment of its arrival, which will not be marked by 
external sounds. 

21. ob8€ epodow. “ Neither will they say” (with any reason) : 
non erit quod dicatur (Grot.). In ver. 23 they do say this; but it 
is a groundless statement. The idod before éxet (A D, Vulg.) is 
an insertion from ver. 23. 

i800 yép. See on i. 44. This idov introduces the true state- 
ment in contrast to the previous idov, which introduced a false 
one. The yap marks the reason why “Lo here” or “ There” 
cannot be accepted. Note the solemn repetition of 7 BaovAcia 
Tov @eov. 

évtés Spav éoriv. Usage sanctions either translation: “ within 
you, in your hearts” (Ps. xxxvill. 4, Cvill. 22, cill. 1; Is. xvi. 11; 
Dan. x. 16 (Theod.); Ecclus. xix. 23 [26]: comp. Mt. xxiii. 26); 
or, ‘among you, in your midst” (Xen. Azad. i. 10. 3; Hellen. ii. 3. 
19; Plat. Zeg. vii. 789 A). The latter seems to suit the context 
better ; for the Kingdom of God was not in the hearts of the 
Pharisees, who are the persons addressed. The meaning will 
then be, ‘‘so far from coming with external signs which will attract 
attention, the Kingdom is already in the midst of you (in the 
person of Christ and of His disciples), and you do not perceive 
it.” Note the contrast between épotcw, the supposition that the 
Kingdom is still in the future, and éoriv, the fact that it is really 
present. But this rendering of évrds lacks confirmation in Scrzf- 
ture, and the context is not deccs¢ve against the other. If ‘within 
you” be adopted, the meaning will be, “Instead of being some- 
thing externally visible, the Kingdom is essentially spiritual: it is 
in your hearts, 7f you possess it at all.” 


All Latin texts have z#tra vos est. But the interpretation of ‘‘ within you” 
varies considerably. Gregory Nyssen explains it of the image of God bestowed 
upon all men at their birth (De Verg. xii.; comp. De Beat. i.), which cannot 
be right. Cyril of Alexandria makes it mean, ‘‘lies in your pone to appro- 

riate it,” éy éfovela Ketrat 7d AaBety adryv (Migne, Ixxii. 841). Similarly 

aldonatus, guza poterant, sz vellent, Christum recipere. But this is translating 
évrds buav “within you,” and interpreting ‘‘ within you” as much the same 
as ‘‘among you.” If they had ot received Christ or the Kingdom, it was 
not yet within them. Against ‘‘in your hearts” Maldonatus points that not 
only does Lk. tell us that the words were addressed to the Pharisees, in whose 
hearts the Kingdom was not ; but that he emphasizes this by stating that the 
next saying was addressed to the dzsczf/es. Among moderns, Godet argues 
ably for ‘‘ within you” (see also McClellan): Weiss and Hahn for ‘‘among 
you.” Syr-Sin. has “among.” Comp. xii. 28. 


22. Etmev 82 mpds tos palytds. Apparently this is the same 


XVIL. 22-24] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 407 


occasion (comp. xii. 22); and perhaps the Pharisees have retired. 
But we cannot be certain of either point. Christ takes up the 
subject which the Pharisees had introduced, and shows that it is 
the Second Advent that will be accompanied by visible signs. 
But with regard to these, discrimination must be used. Comp, 
Mt. xxiv. 23, 26 and Mk. xiii. 21, to which this is partly 
parallel. 

*Ehedcovrat fpépar. No article: “ Days will come”: as in 
was, Xx. 6; Mt. ix. 15; Mk. ii. 20. Even RV. has “ The days 
will come.” ‘Comp. the Johannean phrase, <pxerat dpa, “There 
cometh a” hour” (Jn. iv. 21, 23, v. 25, 28, xvi. 2, 25, 32). But 
it is erroneous to make this passage mean the same as v. 35; 
Mt. ix. 15; Mk. ii. 20:—“ Days will come, when the bridegroom 
shall be taken away from them ; then will they fast in those days.” 
This means, not that hereafter there will be a time when the 
disciples will long in vain for one day of such intercourse with 
Christ as they are constantly enjoying now; but that there will 
be days in which they will yearn for a foretaste of the coming 
glory, a glory which must be waited for and cannot be antici- 
pated. “Oh for one day of heaven in this time of trouble!” 
is a futile wish, but it will be framed by some. It is clear from 
ver. 26 what “the days of the Son of Man” must mean. But 
what does piav tév fpepay, x.t.., mean? The common rendering, 
“‘ one of the days,” etc., makes good sense. But the possibility of 
taking the expression as a Hebraism, “one” being used for “ first,” 
as in pu Tdv caBBdrwv (Mk. xvi. 2), is worth noting. Comp. xxiv. 1; 
Mt. xxviii. 1; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Jn. xx. 1. In this case 
the desire would be for “the jivs¢ of the days of the Son of 
Man,” the day of His return. 

Kat odk deo8e. Not because it will never come; but because 
it will not come in those days of longing. 

23. There is no contradiction between this and ver. 21. That 
refers to true signs of the First Advent; this to false signs of 
the Second. It covers all premature announcements of the 
approach of the Last Day. AW predictions of exact dates, and all 
statements as to local appearances, are to be mistrusted. 

pH amehOnte pyde SidEqte. “Do not leave your ordinary 
occupation, still less go after those who offer to lead you to the 
place of the Son of Man’s appearing.” 

24, Gowep yap  dotpam. As sudden, and as universally 
visible. None will foresee it, and all will see it at once; so that 
no vefort respecting it can have any value. Von ejus ergo venturi 
tempus aut locus potest a mortalibus observari, gui fulguris instar 
omnibus coruscus videlicet et repentinus adveniet (Bede). See on 
ii. 8, xi. 46, xxiii. 46 for Lk.’s fondness for cognate words. The 
wording here is almost identical with Mt. xxiv. 27. 


408 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIL. 24-30 


The art. before dorpdmrrovca is probably an insertion: om. NBLXT. 
Without it translate, ‘‘ when it lightens.” For fu/gur e has choruscatéo and 
d has scoruscus. In what follows we again have an amphibolous expression 
(ix. 17, 18, 27, 57, x. 18, etc.) ; but é« r7s . . . bm ovpavdy should be taken 
with Adare. rather than with dotpdmrovoa. For the ellipse of xwpa after 
4 on’ ovpavoy or 4 umd Tov ovpavev comp. Deut. xxv. 19; Job i. 7, fi. 2) 
xviii. 4, xxxiv. 13, xxxviii. 18, xlii. 15. The words év 77 inéow avrod after 
dv@pmmrov are of doubtful authority : om. BD, abcdei Aeth., while 1 has 
in adventu suo (comp. Mt. xxiv. 27): om. Alius homints in die sua ff,. 
Syr-Sin. has ‘so shall be the day of the Son of Man.” 


25. mpatov Sé Set adtoy .. . dmodokipacOAvar, ‘But there is 
no need to te expecting this now”: the events immediately im- 
pending are very different. For Set see on iv. 43, and for 
dmodokipacOjvar see On ix. 22, and comp. xvili. 31. Just as the 
thought of impending suffering needs to be cheered by that of 
future glory, so the thought of future glory needs to be chastened 
by that of impending suffering. Comp. ix. 44. 

26. Having told the disciples that the Son of Man will not 
come as soon as they wish (22), in what way He will not come 
(23), in what way He will come (24), and what will happen first 
(25), Christ now states in what condition the human race will be 
when He comes. 

kal KaQws eyévero. Not aomep, as in ver. 24. There some- 
thing azalogous was introduced; here something exactly similar 
is cited. “Just as, even as.” Comp. xi. 30; Jn. ili. 14; 2 Cor. 
i. 5, x. 7, etc. In Attic Greek we should rather have nao (Rom. 
Vili. 26), xaOa (Mt. xxvii. 10), or kaOdzrep (Rom. xii. 4). 

27. jobov, envoy, éydpouv, éyapiLovro. The imperfects and the 
asyndeton are very vivid: ‘‘ They were eating, they were drinking,” 
etc. The point is not merely that they were living their ordinary 
lives, but that they were wholly given up to external things. 


It is of no moment whether xal rOev C) KaraKxhuo ps i is made to depend 
upon &xpt is yuépas or not: probably it is independent. But certainly 
dpolws belongs to KaOws éyévero (s¢militer stcut factum est, Vulg.), and not to 
drwrecev wdvras (perdidit omnes pariter), which is pointless. The épolws 
anticipates kara 7a aurd in ver. 30. 


28, 29. There is no parallel to this in Mt. xxiv. It is a 
second instance ge careless enjoyment suddenly overwhelmed. 
Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 5, 6 


29. €Bpctev wip wat Oetov. The subject of éBpetev is Kvpios, which is 
expressed in Gen. xix. 24 (comp. Mt. v. 45) and must be supplied here, 
because of drwAecev, The verb is not impers., as in Jas. v. 17. Grotius 
makes 7p cal Oefov the nom. and compares iva wh Bpexy verds (Rev. xi. 16). 
Gen. xix. 24 and the sing. verb are against this. Comp. Hom. Od, xxii. 493. 


80. dmoxah’mretat. A technical expression in this connexion 
(x Cor. i 7; 2 Thes:ig; 1 Pet. 1 9, 13, 1v.1%g).) “Dhewpresems 


XVII. 80-34. ] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 409 


indicates the certainty of the veil being withdrawn. Up to that 
day He is hidden from man’s sight: then at once He is revealed. 

81. In Mt. xxiv. 17, 18 and Mk. xiii. 15, 16 these words are 
spoken of /7zghz before the destruction of Jerusalem. Here /Zght is 
neither expressed nor understood. The point is absolute indifference 
to all worldly interests as the attitude of readiness for the Son of Man. 
We need not discuss whether the words were spoken in a literal 
sense, as in Mk. and Mt., and Lk has applied them spiritually ; or 
in a spiritual sense, and Mt. and Mk. have taken them literally. 
Christ may have used them in both senses. The warning about 
flight from Judea is recorded by Lk. elsewhere (xxi. 21). On the 
oratio variata of the constr. see Win. Ixili. 2. 1, p. 722, 723. 

32. pynpovedete THS yuvarkds Adt. Lot’s wife looked back with 
a wish to recover worldly possessions and enjoyments. She proved 
herself to be unworthy of the salvation that was offered her. In like 
manner the Christian, whose first thought at the Advent of the Son 
of Man was about the safety of his goods, would be unfit for the 
Kingdom of God. 

Note that Christ says, “‘ Remember,” not “ Behold.” Vothing 
that is in existence ts appealed to, but only what has been told. 
Attempts have been made to identify the Pillar of Salt. Josephus 
believed that he had seen it (Amz. i. 11. 4). Comp. Wisd. x. 7; 
Clem. Rom. Cor. xi.; Iren. iv. 31. 3; Cyr. Hier. Cazech. xix. 8. 

833. mepitoujcac8ar. “To preserve for himself”: elsewhere 
“to gain for oneself” (Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 13). The reading 
oéoat (A R) comes from ix. 24. 

twoyorycer. “Shall preserve alive”: Acts vii. 19; 1 Tim. vi. 13; 
Exod. i. 17; Judg. viii. 19; 1 Sam. ii. 6, xxvii. 9, 11; 1 Kings 
xxl. 31. The rendering “shall bring to a new birth” has been 
rightly abandoned by Godet. In bibl. Grk. it is not used of 
“bringing forth alive,” “viviparous.” From ix. 24; Mt. x. 39, 
xvi. 25; Mk. viii. 35; Jn. xii. 25 it appears that this solemn warn- 
ing was often uttered : for most of these passages refer to differert 
occasions. It is the one important saying which is in all four. 

84, 35. The closest intimacy in this life is no guarantee of 
community of condition when the Son of Man comes. The 
strangest separations will take place between comrades, according 
as one is fit to enter the Kingdom and another not. 

84. tatty TH vuKti. This must not be pressed to mean any- 
thing, whether a time of great horror or actual night. Christ is not 
intimating that His return will take place in the night-time. 
eye is part of the picture, for it is then that people are in 

e 

Buo ert Khivys pds. “Two on one bed.” Not necessarily two 
men, although that is probably the meaning. AV. was the first 
English Version to insert “ men,” and RV. retains it. The “ being 


410 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X VIL. 34-37. 


taken” probably means “taken from destruction” (Jn. xiv. 3), as 
G\Adtpios THs épyns (Eus.), as Lot from Sodom; while “left” 
means “left to his fate” (xiii. 35). Or, “taken into the Kingdom” 
and “left outside” may be the meaning. 

35. This image presupposes day rather than night, and refers 
to a fact which is still of everyday occurrence in the East. Whether 
people be sleeping or working when the Lord comes, those who 
still cling to things earthly will be left without share in the 
Messianic joy. And in this matter “no man may deliver his 
brother”: €orae wAelorn Kal dxpiBys Tdv TpdTwv 4 Soxiyacia (Cyr.). 

86. An ancient (D, Latt. Syrr.) insertion from Mt. xxiv. 40: om, 
# A BQR, Aeth. Copt. Goth. 

87. Mou, kupte; The question is one of curiosity which Christ 
does not gratify. Moreover, it assumes, what He has just been 
denying, that the Second Advent will be local—limited to one 
quarter of the earth. 

“Orou 75 cGpa, éxet Kat ot detot. This was perhaps a current 
proverb. The application is here quite general. ‘‘ Where the con- 
ditions are fulfilled, there and there only will the revelation of the 
Son of Man take place.” Or possibly, “‘Where the dead body of 
human nature, clinging to earthly things, is, there the judgments of 
God willcome”: ui peccatores, bi Dei judicia. Jesus thus sets aside 
all questions as to the ¢me (ver. 20) or the Alace (ver. 37) of His 
return. One thing is certain ; that a// who are not ready will suffer 
(vv. 27, 29). Upon all who are dead to the claims of the Kingdom 
ruin will fall (37). The wraua of Mt. xxiv. 28 expresses more 
definitely than oda that the body is a dead one: comp. Mt. 
xiv. 12; Mk. vi. 29, xv. 45; Rev. xi. 8,9. But cdua for a dead 
body is quite classical, and is always so used in Homer, a living 
body being déuas: comp. Acts ix. 40. 

oi detot. “The vultures.” Here, as in Mic. i. 16, the griffon 
vulture ( Vultur fulvus) is probably meant: comp. Job xxxix. 27-30 ; 
Hab. i. 8; Hos. viii. 1, and see Tristram, (Vat. Hist. of B. p. 172; 
D.B.? art. “Eagle.” Eagles neither fly in flocks nor feed on 
carrion. During the Crimean War, griffon vultures, which had 
previously been scarce round Sebastopol, collected in great 
numbers, “‘ from the ends of the earth,” as the Turks said. In the 
less general interpretation of this saying of Christ the dero¢ are the 
ministers of judgment which overtake the ungodly. A reference to 
the eagles of the Roman standards is not in point here, although 
it is possible Mt. xxiv. 28. The patristic interpretation of the 
saints gathering round the glorified body of Christ is equally 
unsuitable to the context.) See Didon, 7 C. ch. ix. p. 613, 
ed. 1891. 


1“Orav 6 ulds TOU dv Opamov maparyévnrat, TOTe bn advres ol derol, rourécrw ol 
vd bYnrd weromevor, kal Tay émvyelwy We MB ee dvevnypevot mpayudrwr, ér’ 


XVIII. 1, 2.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 4II 


XVIII. 1-8. § The Parable of the Unrighteous Judge. Comp. 
xv. 8-10, 11-32, xVi. I-9, I9—31, Xvil. 7-10. The connexion with 
what precedes is close, and is implied in the opening clause ; for 
avrois naturally refers to the same audience as before. Had there 
been no connexion, atrois would have been omitted : comp. xiii. 6. 
Godet appeals also to the formula éAeyer dé xa‘; but here the xai 
is not genuine. The connexion is, that, although the time of 
Christ’s return to deliver His people is hidden from them, yet they 
must not cease to pray for deliverance. Both here and xxi. 36 we 
have the command to be unremitting in prayer immediately after a 
declaration that the hour of Christ’s coming is unknown; and the 
same connexion is found Mk. xiii. 33. 

1. “Edeyev 8 mapaBodyy. See on v. 36. 

mpos TO Setv. Not merely the duty, but the necessity of per- 
severance in prayer is expressed ; and prayer in general is meant, 
not merely prayer in reference to the Second Advent and the 
troubles which precede it. Only here and ver. 9 is the meaning of 
a parable put as the preface to it ; and in each case it is given as 
the Evangelist’s preface, not as Christ's. 

mwdvrote tpocetxecOar. Comp. wavrote yalpere. ddiaXeirTws 
apoaetxeobe (1 Thes. v. 17). Grotius quotes Proclus ad Timzum, 
xp adiadcizrus edyeoOar THs TEpit TO Hetov Opyoxeias. See Origen, 
wept evyns, xil.; Tert. De Orat. xxix.; Lft. Zp. p. 81. On the other 
hand, we have the Jewish doctrine that God must not be wearied 
with incessant prayer. Zanchuma, fol. 15. 3. A man ought not to 
pray more than three times a day. Hourly prayers are forbidden. 
Si quis singulis horis ad te salutandum accedit, hunc dicis te contem- 
tui habere: idem ergo quogue valet de Deo, quem nemo hominum 
singulis horis defatigare debet (Schcettgen, i. 305). 


The form évxaxety is right here, elsewhere éyxaxetv (2 Cor. iv. 1, 16; Gal. 
vi. 9; Eph. iii. 13 ; 2 Thes. ili. 13); but in all six places some texts have 
éxxaxetv. See Gregory, Proleg. p. 78. Ellicott makes éyxaxeiy mean “‘ to 
lose heart zz a course of action,” and éxxaxei “‘to retire through fear out of 
it” ; but authority for any such word as éxkaxety seems to be wanting. Per- 
haps éyxaxeiy is not found earlier than Polybius. See Suicer. 


2. Kpirys tis qv év tit woke, We are probably to understand 
a Gentile official. He had no respect for either the vox Dei or 
the vox populi, consciously (ver. 4) defying Divine commands and 
public opinion. See numerous parallels in Wetst., and contrast 
2 Cor. vill. 21. The Talmud speaks of frequent oppression and 
venality on the part of Gentile magistrates; and for a striking 
illustration of the parable witnessed by himself see Tristram, 
Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 228. Note the rues. 


atrév cuvdpapodvra (Cyr. Alex., Migne, Ixii. 848). Justorum animez aquilss 
comparantur, quod alta petant, humila derelinquant, longzvam ducere ferantur 
ztatem (Ambr., Migne. xv. 1781). Comp. Paschasius Radbertus on Mt. xxiv. 28, 


412 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE {[ XVIII. 2-5. 


The idea of évrpéoyuat seems to be that of ‘‘ turning towards” a person, 
and so ‘‘ paying respect” (xx. 13 ; Mt. xxi. 37; Mk. xii. 6; 2 Thes. iii. 143 
Heb. xii. 9). But as évrpémw means “I put to shame” (1 Cor. iv. 14), 
évrpémoua may possibly have the notion of ‘‘ being abashed, having a feeling 
of awe,” before a person. In class. Grk. it is commonly followed by a gen. 

8. xypa Sé qv. Typical of defencelessness: she had neither a 
protector to coerce, nor money to bribe the unrighteous magistrate. 
Tl e O.T. abounds in denunciations of those who oppress widows : 
Exod. xxli. 22; Deut. x. 18, xxiv. 17, xxvil. 19; Job xxii. 9, 
xxlv. 3; Jer. xxii. 3; Ezek. xxii. 7, etc. Comp. Von, tifa me dit 
ament, auderet facere hee vidue muliert, que in me facit (Ter. 
fleaut. v. 1. 80). 

jpxeto. “Continued coming, came often,” ventitabat. The 
imperf. indicates her persistence. 

*ExDSixynody pe dd. “ Give me a sentence of protection from ; 
vindicate my right (and so protect me) from.” Assere me jure 
dicundo ab injuria adversarit mei (Schleusn.). For the émé comp. 
xll. 15, 58, xlil. 16, xx. 46: it does not express the penalty exacted 
from the adversary, but the protection afforded from him, as in picat 
npGs ard Tod rovnpov’. The meaning is “preserve me against his 
attacks” rather than “ deliver me out of his power,” which would 
require ék. For dvti8ikos comp. xii. 58; Mt. v. 25. 


As often, the dd follows up the idea suggested by the éx in the compound 
verb: see on efépxouat add (iv. 35), and comp. also éxhéyouat dao (vi. 13), 
exfnreiv amd (xi. 50, 51), éxdudxw dad (Joel ii. 20; Dan. iv. 22, 29, 30, 
Theod.), etc. Here d has devindica me ab. 


4. ox 70ekev. The imperf. (SA BDLQRXA) has more 
point than the aor. (E etc.): he continued refusing, just as she 
continued coming. With émt xpevoy comp. ézi wAciova xp. (Acts 
XVili. 20) ; €f door xp. (Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 39; Gal. iv. 1). 

Ei kat tov Ocdv ob doPodpar. “Although I fear not God,” imply- 
ing that this is the actual fact (2 Cor. xii. 11), whereas Kat «# 
would have put it as an hypothesis (1 Cor. vili. 5; 1 Pet. ili. 1). 
Win. lit. 7. b, p. 554. 

Perhaps its being given as a fact explains the use of od rather than wu: or 
the ov coalesces with the verb, and thus escapes the influence of the el: comp. 


xi, 8, xiv. 26, xvi. II, 12, 31; 2 Cor. xii. 11. Burton, §§ 284, 469. But see 
Simcox, Zang. of N.T. p. 184. 


ovsé. “Nor yet, nor even”: a climax. 

5. Sid ye Td mapéxerv por Kétrov. “Yet because she troubleth 
me.” Comp. dia ye tiv dvatdiay airod (xi. 8), where, as here, ei xaé 
is followed by o# and ye. Both xézrov and trwmaly are strong 
words, and express the man’s impatience. 


On the reading rhv xjpa Tavrnv see Gregory, Prolegom. p. 58. 
eis TeAos Epxopevy Srwmdly pe. “ Unto the end, to the utter. 


XVIII. 5-7.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM = 413 


most” easily passed in meaning to either “continually” or “at 
last”; and either of these makes sense here, according as we join 
eis TéAos with the participle or the verb or both. Either, “ by con- 
tinually coming wear me out”; or, “at last by her ccming wear 
me out”; or, “be for ever coming and plaguing me.” The first 
is best : it was her ZerZetwal coming that was so trying. Both réAos 
and és réAos are frequent in class. Grk. In LXX eis réXos is frequent. 
éromd{y. From tzumv, which means (1) the part of the 
face below the eyes ; (2) a blow there, a black eye; (3) any blow. 
Hence tirwmidfm means (1) hit under the eye, give a black eye; 
(2) beat black and blue; (3) mortify, annoy greatly (1 Cor. ix. 27). 
Comp. at réAas trwriacpeévae (Aristoph. Pax, 541). There is no 
doubt that “annoy greatly” is the meaning here. Comp. Qui me 
sequatur quoguo eam, rogitando obtundat, enecet (Ter. Eun. iii. 5. 6). 
Meyer, Godet, Weiss and others advocate the literal meaning, and 
regard it as a mauvaise plaisanterie or an exaggeration on the part 
of the judge. But, as Field points out (Otiwm JVorvic. iil. p. 52), 
the tenses are fatal to it. ‘‘ Lest at last she come and black my 
eyes for me” would require €Afotoa izwmdon. The judge was 
afraid of being annoyed continually, not of being assaulted once. 


The Latin Versions vary much in their rendering both of els réXos and of 
drumdty: 2 novissimo (Vulg.), 7% novessimo die (q), 2 tempus (d), usque ad 
jinem (e), usque quaque (1), im finem (rt): suggzllet (Vulg.), constringat 
(b ff, q), molestéor stt mihi (e), tnvidiam mihi faczat (1). 

Strauss has pointed out similarities of feature between the parables of the 
Rich Fool, the Friend at Midnight, and the Unrighteous Judge, especially 
with regard to the soliloquies in each case: duedoyifero ev ait& héywr Th 
woujow, 8rt K.T.A., TOUTO Tojow (xii. 17, 18); elev 5é ev éauT@ 6 olkovduos 
Ti woujow, Ort K.7.A., 2yvwv th moijow (xvi. 3, 4); elev év éaur@ (xviii. 4), 
One may admit that these are ‘‘signs of a common origin,” but that they are 
also ‘‘signs of a Jewish-Christian, or indeed of an Ebionite source,” is not su 
evident. He says that this ‘‘ mimic” repetition, ‘‘ What shall I do?. .- 
This will I do,” is thoroughly Jewish. But as Christ was a Jew, speaking to 
Jews, there is nothing surprising in that. He says also that the Ebionites 
laid great stress on prayer, and inculcated a contempt for riches; and that 
two of the three parables do the one, while the third does the other. But 
assuredly the Ebionites were not peculiar in advocating prayer, nor in 
despising riches, although in the latter point they went to fanatical excess. 
See Strauss, Z. J. § 41, p. 257, ed. 1864. 


6. Etmev 8€ 6 xdptos. The insertion indicates a pause, during 
which the audience consider the parable, after which Jesus makes 
a comment and draws the moral of the narrative. For 6 kdptos of 
Christ see on v. 17 and vii. 13; and for o xpiths Tis ddikias see on 
xvi. 8. 

7. ob pi wojon. This intensive form of the simple negative 
may be used in questions as well as in statements, and expresses 
the confidence with which an affirmative answer is expected: 
comp. Jn. xviii. rr. Rev. xv. 4 is not quite parallel. The argu 


414 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XVIIL 7, 8 


ment here is @ fortiori, or (as Augustine, Quest. Evang. ii. 45) 
ex dissimilitude, and has many points. If an unjust judge would 
yield to the importunity of an unknown widow, who came and spoke 
to him at intervals, how much more will a just God be ready to 
reward the perseverance of His own elect, who cry to Him day and 
night? Comp. the very similar passage Ecclus. xxxv. 13-18 
[xxxiil. 18-22], and the similar argument Lk. xi. 13. The treat- 
ment of the Syrophenician woman (Mt. xv. 22—28 ||) is an illustra- 
tion of the text. With tv Bodvrwy atté comp. the souls of the 
saints under the altar (Rev. vi. gQ-11). In both cases it is deliver- 
ance from oppression that is prayed for. 

kal pakpodupet ém adtois. ‘And He is long-suffering over 
them” (RV.). This, and not paxpofvydv (E), is the reading of 
almost all uncials and of other important authorities: e¢ patiens est 
in tllts (d e), et patientiam habebit in tilis (Vulg.). 

The exact meaning of the different parts of the clause cannot 
be determined with certainty; but the general sense is clear 
enough, viz. that, however long the answer to prayer may seem to 
be delayed, constant faithful prayer always zs answered. 


The chief points of doubt are (1) the construction of kal waxpoOupe?, (2) the 
meaning of paxpoOupe?, (3) the meaning of é’ a’rois. (1) We need not join 
kal paxpoOuuet to od wh mojoy, but may take it with Tay Bowvrwy, which is 
equivalent to of Bodow: the elect cry and He paxpoOupet er’ atrots. (2) We 
need not give pwaxpofuue? its very common meaning of ‘“‘is slow fo anger”: it 
sometimes means ‘‘ to be slow, be backward, tarry,” and is almost synonymous 
with Bpadvvw. Comp. Heb. vi. 15; James v. 7; Job vii. 16; Jer. xv. 15; and 
the remarkably parallel passage Ecclus. xxxv. [xxxii.] 22, kal 6 Kupios od wh 
Bpadivy ovdé wh paxpoOuunce én’ avtrois. So also paxpofuula may mean 
‘*slow persistency” as well as ‘‘slowness to anger.” Comp. I Mac. viii. 4, 
and see Trench, Syz. liii. (3) This being so, there is no need to make ér’ 
avrots refer to the enemzes of the elect, although such loose wording is not 
impossible, especially if Lk. had the passage in Ecclus. in his mind. The 
words naturally, and in strict grammar necessarily, refer to the elect, and 
indicate the persons in respect of whom the slowness of action takes place. 
Comp. paxpofuyGv ér’ aire (James v. 7). The meaning, then, seems to be, 
‘€ And shall not God deliver His elect who cry day and night to Him, while He 
is slow to act for them?” That is, to them in their need the paxpoOupla of God 
seems to be Bpadurns (Rev. vi. 10), just as it does to the ungodly, when they see 
no judgment overtaking them (2 Pet. iii. 1-10). But it is possible that waxpoupet 
means ‘‘is not impatient.” The unjust judge heard the widow’s frequent 
request with impatience and dislike. God listens to the ceaseless crying of His 
saints with willingness and pleasure. In this sense waxpoOupety is the opposite 
of dtv@uuetv, ‘‘ to be quick-tempered.” 


8. év tdxet. “ Quickly, without delay”; celeriter (a), confestim 
(d), cifo (Vulg.). Although He bears long, and to those who are 
suffering seems to delay, yet He really acts speedily. This inter- 
pretation is confirmed by Acts xil. 7, xxil, 18, xxv. 4; Rom. 
xvi. 20; 1 Tim. iii. 4; Rev. i. 1, xxii. 6. Others prefer zepente, 
tnopinato. Thus Godet says, that although God delays to act, yet, 


XVII. 8.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 4I5 


when the moment comes, He acts swiftly, as at the Deluge and the 
destruction of Sodom. So Didon, 7heure sonnée, la vengeance sera 
foudroyante (J. C. ch. ix. p. 614). In any case, the & rdxe is 
placed last with emphasis. 

mayv. ‘ Howbeit (certain as the Messiah’s deliverance of His 
people is, a sorrowful question arises) the Son of Man, when He 
is come, will He find faith on the earth?” The zAny is not 
im Uebrigen (Weiss), nor seulement (Godet), but doch (Luther), 
cependant (Lasserre). Latin Versions have verum (d), tamen (bi 
1q), or verumtamen (Vulg.). Note the emphatic order, both 6 
vids t. avOp. and éAédv being placed before the interrogative 
particle. Yet Syr-Sin. has, “Shall the Son of man come and find.” 


Only here and Gal. ii. 17 (where some prefer dpa) is dpa found in N.T. 
In LXX it is always followed by ye (Gen. xviii. 13, xxvi. 9, xxxvii. 10; Jer. 
iv. 10), but without ye it is freq. in Sym. Latin Versions have zumguzd (bci 
1q) or futas (Vulg.). See Blass on Acts viii. 30. 


thy miotw. ‘*The necessary faith, the faith in question, faith 
in Jesus ‘as the Messiah and Saviour.” Others prefer “the faith 
which perseveres in prayer,” or again “loyalty to Himself,” which 
is much the same as faith in Christ. The answer to this despond- 
ing question, which seems, but only seems, “to call in question 
the success of our Lord’s whole mediatorial work,” has been given 
by anticipation xvii. 26: the majority, not only of mankind but of 
Christians, will be absorbed in worldly pursuits, and only a few 
will “endure to the end” (Mt. xxii. 12, 13). No doubt is 
expressed or implied as to the coming of the Son of Man, but only 
as to what He will find. 


There is therefore no reason for conjecturing that the parable received its 
present form at a time when belief in the Second Advent was waning. Still 
less reason is there for interpreting it of the Christian Church seeking help from 
pagan magistrates against Jewish persecutors, and then concluding that it must 
have been composed after the time of S. Luke (De Wette). On the other 
hand, Hilgenfeld sees in the thirst for vengeance, which (he thinks) inspires 
the parable, evidence of its being one of the oldest portions of the Third 
Gospel. 


9-14. § The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. This 
has no connexion either with the parable which precedes it or with 
the narrative which follows it. The two paiables were evidently 
spoken on different occasions and addressed to different audi- 
ences, the first to the disciples on a specified occasion, the 
second to the persons described in ver. 9 on some occasion not 
specified. They are placed in juxtaposition, probably because 
tradition assigned them to the same portion of Christ’s ministry 
(Hahn) ; or fosstbly because they both (but in very different ways) 
treat of prayer (Keil). That Lk. brackets the two parables for 


416 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIII 9-11. 


some reason is shown by the xai. But note the d¢ also, and see 
on lil. 9. 
The xal is genuine (§BDLMQRXA, Vulg.) although A ete. with 


several Versions omit. 


9. As in ver. 1, this preface to the parable is the Evangelist’s : 
elmev 5é, dé kal, ciwev apos, and cirev wapaBoAny are all 
marks of his style. It is possible to take mpos here as meaning 
“with a view to,” as in ver. 1, or “against,” as in xx. 19. But it 
is much more likely that it means “unto” after «fev, because (1) 
this construction is specially common in Lk. and (2) we here have 
persons and not the substantial infinitive after rpés: dixit autem et 
ad quosdam qui (Vulg.). Syr-Sin. has “against.” 

Tods tremovboTas ep Eautois 671. They themselves were the 
foundation on which their confidence was built: xi. 22; 2 Cor. 
i. 9; Heb. ii. 13; Deut. xxviii. 52; 2 Sam: xxtg5y is meee 
xil. 2, etc. The constructions & tw, exit twa, and «is tiva are 
less common. Grotius and others render 67 “because,” making 
the righteousness a fact and the ground of their self-confidence ; 
which is incredible. Comp. Prov. xxx. 12; Is. Ixv. 5. The 
Talmud inveighs against the Pharisaism of those “who implore 
you to mention some more duties which they might perform.” 

- fouSevodvras. A strong word, common to Lk. and Paul: 
“utterly despised, treated as of no account,” xxiii, 11; Acts 
ive 225 Rom. xiv..3, ro. » Comp, #s. Sofia: 

tos Aormods. ‘The rest, a// others” (RV.): comp. of Aourot 
(ver. 11). The “other” of AV. and most English Versions has 
been silently altered into “others” by the printers: “other” 
means “other folk,” but tots Aourovs means “ a// other folk.” 

10. dvéByoay. ‘They went ~p” from the lower city to Mount 
Moriah, the “ Hill of the House,” on which the temple stood. 
We are probably to understand one of the usual hours of prayer 
Gi) 203 :Acts iL 25, it 2, x9). 

11. otaGeis. This perhaps indicates the conscious adopting of an 
attitude or of a conspicuous place: debout et la téte haute (Lasserre) ; 
apres sétre placé en évidence (Reuss) ; im loco conspicuo instar statuz 
stans erectus (Valck.). Contrast ver. 13 and comp. ver. 40, xix. 8; 
Acts ii. 14, xvii. 22, xxvii. 21. The expression is peculiar to Lk. 
Standing was the common posture at prayer among the Jews 
(1 Sam. i. 26; 1 Kings viii. 14, 22; Mt. vi. 5; Mk. xi. 25). See 
Lightfoot on Mt. vi. 5. 


apds €avtév. These words probably follow tatra (BL, Vulg. Boh. Arm. 
Orig.) ; but, even if they precede, they must be taken with rpoontxero (comp. 
2 Mac. xi. 13): zztra se precabatur (e), apud se orabat (Vulg.). This use 
of mpds éauréy is classical. ‘‘Standing by himself” would be xaé’ cauréy, 
ceorsum, which D here reads: comp. Acts xxviii. 16; Jas. ii. 17. The char- 


XVIIL 11,12.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 417 


— of his prayer shows why he would not utter it so that others could 
ear, 

edxapict@ oot. There is no prayer, even in form; he asks God 

for nothing, being thoroughly y satisfied with his present condition. 
And only in form is this utterance a thanksgiving ; it is self-con- 
gratulation. He glances at God, but contemplates himself. In- 
deed he almost pities God, who but for himself would be destitute 
of faithful servants. 
"ot Aowtrol tay avOpdrav. “The rest of men” (RV.), “all other 
men,” ceteri hominum (Vulg.). He is in a class by himself; every 
one else in a very inferior class. For other vainglorious thanks- 
givings used by Jews see Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. p. 291. Contrast 
S. Paul’s declaration 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10, and see Scheettgen, i. p. 
306. Voli in precibus bona tua enumerare. 

Gptayes, Gdixot, porxot. Gratias agit, non quia bonus, sed quia 
solus ; non tam de bonis que habet, quam de malis que in alits videt 
(Bernard, De Grad. Humil. v.17). But there is no hint that he 
was lying in acquitting himself of gross and flagrant crimes. Such 
falsehood in a silent address to God is scarcely intelligible. His 
error lay in supposing that all other men were guilty of these 
things, and that he himself was not guilty of sins that were as bad 
or worse. Hillel had taught, “ Endeavour not to be better than 
the community, and trust not in thyself until the day of thy death.” 
The oitos is contemptuous, as often. The teAdvys is pointed out 
to the Almighty as a specimen of oi Aouroi 7. dvOpa7rwv. 

12. He cites these good works as instances of the ways in 
which he is still further superior to other men. He is superior 
not only in what he avoids, but in what he performs. Charac- 
teristically he names just those things on which Pharisees prided 
themselves (Mt. ix. 14, xxili. 23). 

Sis tod caBBdrov. Mondays and Thursdays. Moses was sup- 
posed to have ascended the mount on the fifth day, and to have 
come down on the second. For the sing. of odBBarov in the sense 
of “a week” comp. Mk. xvi. 9; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. It is amazing that 
any should have taken this as meaning “I fast twice on the 
sabbath,” which would be unintelligible. The jejuno bis in sabbato 
of the Vulg. might mislead those who knew no Greek. The frequent 
statement that the Pharisees observed the second and fifth days 
as fasts all through the year (D.Z.? i. 2. p. 1054), and held that 
this was enjoined by the oral Law, is without foundation: and 
those who make it are inconsistent in saying that this Pharisee 
boasts of works of supererogation. In that case he merely states _ 
that he keeps the Law in its entirety. The Mosaic Law enjoins 
only one fast in the year, the Day of Atonement. Other annual 
fasts were gradually established in memory of national calamities 
(Zech. viii. 19). Occasional fasts were from time to time ordered 

27 


418 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVII 12, 13. 


in seasons of drought and other public calamities, and these ad- 
ditional fasts were always held on Mondays and Thursdays. Thus, 
a five days’ fast would not last from Monday to Friday inclusive, 
but would be held on all Mondays and Thursdays until the five 
days were made up (see the Didache, viii. 1; Apost. Const. vii. 23. 1). 
But many individuals imposed extra fasts on themselves, and 
there were some who fasted on Mondays and Thursdays a// the 
year round. Such cases would be commonest among the Pharisees, 
and the Pharisee in the parable is one of them: but there is no 
evidence that all Pharisees adopted this practice or tried to make 
it a general obligation (Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. 
II. ii. p. 118; Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. p. 291 ; Wetstein and Lightfoot, 
ad /oc.). The man, therefore, zs boasting of a work of supererogation. 
What is told us about Jewish fasting in the N.T. (v. 33; Mt. vi. 16, 
ix. 14; Mk. ii. 18; Acts xxvii. 9) is confirmed by the Mishna. 
Note that the Pharisee has dropped even the form of thanksgiving. 


With dts rod caSBdrov comp. érrdxis Tis qupas (xvii. 4). The genitives 
in xxiv. 1; Mt. ii. 14, xxv. 6, xxviii. 13; Gal. vi. 17 are not parallel. 

dmodexatevw mévra. Here again, in paying tithe of everything, 

he seems to boast of doing more than the Law required. Tithe 

was due (Num. xviii. 21; Deut. xiv. 22), but not of small garden 

herbs (Mt. xxiii. 23). There is something for which God owes 
thanks to Azm. 

The rare form dodexaredw is found in B x* here in place of the not very 


common dzodexaréw or dmodexarG. WH. ii. App. p. 171. The simple dexa- 
Tevw is more usual, 


Soca ktdpar. “All that I get” (RV.): gusecungue adguiro (iq), 
que adguiro (d). It was on what he acguired, not on what he 
possessed, that he paid tithe; on his income, not on his capital. 
All English Versions prior to RV. go wrong here with Vulg. (guex 
ossideo), Luth. (das ich habe), and Beza. “ Possess” would be 
kextnpat. There is a similar error xxi. 19. Excepting Mt. x. 9 
and 1 Thes. iv. 4, the verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts i. 18, 
Vili. 20, xxii. 28): it is freq. in LXX. 

13. paxpodev éotds. Far from the Pharisee: nothing else is 
indicated. In his self-depreciation he thinks himself unworthy to 
come near in worship to one who. must be a favoured servant of 
God. But we need not suppose that he remained in the Court of the 
Gentiles (Grot.), in which case the Pharisee in the Court of Israel 
would hardly have seen him. Comp. xxiii. 49. The change from 
orabeis (ver. 11) to éords perhaps implies less of a set, prominent 
position in this case. Vulg. has sams in both places; but Cyprian 
has cum stetisset for otafe’s and stabat e¢ for éords (De Dom. 
Orat. vi.). Comp. Tac. Hist. iv. 72. 4. ' 

odk 7Oedev O0dE Tods dpPOahpods Ewapar. The common explana- 


XVIII. 18, 14.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 419 


tion, “woul not lift up even his eyes,” much less his hands and 
his face (1 Tim. ii. 8; 1 Kings viii. 22; Ps. xxviii. 2, lxili. 4, 
cxxxiv. 2), dces not seem to be satisfactory. The ovdé strengthens 
the previous ovx and need not be taken exclusively with ods 
éPOadrpovs: “would not even Ut up his eyes to heaven,” much less 
adopt any confident or familiar attitude towards God. See Mal- 
donatus, ad Joc. Some Rabbis taught that it was necessary to 
keep the eyes down or to close them in praying (Scheettgen, i. 
. 307). 
A =m “He continued to smite”; ‘undebat (d), percutiebat 
(Vulg.). Comp. vill. 52, xxiii. 48. Om. cis after erurve 8 B D. 
tAacOyntt por TH GpaptwrS. ‘Be merciful (Dan. ix. 19) to me 
the sinner.” He also places himself in a class by himself; but he 
makes no comparisons. Consciousness of his own sin is supreme ; 
de nemine alto homine cogitat (Beng.). For similar self-accusation 
comp. Ps. xxv. 11, xl. 12, li. 3 ; Ezra ix. 6; Dan. ix. 8; 1 Tim. i. 15. 
The verb occurs elsewhere in N.T. only Heb. ii. 17, with acc. of 
the sin. In LXX it isnot common. Ps. lxiv. 3, with acc. of the 
sin. Ps. xxiv. 11, lxxvii. 38, lxxviii. 9, with dat. of the sin. 2 Kings 
v. 18, with dat. of the person, as here. The compound ééAao- 
coat is the more usual word. The classical construction with 
acc. of the Zerson propitiated is not found in bibl. Grk., because 
the idea of “ propitiating God”. is not to be encouraged. “The 
‘propitiation’ acts on that which alienates God and not on God, 
whose love is unchanged throughout” (Wsctt. on Heb. ii. 17, and 
Additional Note on 1 Jn. ii. 2, Zp. of S. John, p. 83). 


The Latin Versions have propztiare (c ff, 1), repropitzare (b), miserere (d), 
propitus esto (Vulg.). 


14. déyw Spiv. As often, this formula introduces an important 
declaration uttered with authority (vii. 26, 28, ix. 27, x. 12, 24, 
“LG, .51, Xi 4, 5; 8,127, 375 445-51, xi. 3, ete.). Here Chust 
once more claims to know the secrets both of man’s heart and of 
God’s judgments. 

KatéByn obtos Se8ixatwpévos. The pronoun perhaps looks back 
to the contemptuous otros in ver. 11. “This despised man went 
down justified in the sight of God,” te. “accounted as righteous, 
accepted.” Comp. vii. 35, x. 20, xvi. 15; Is. Ll. 8, lili. 11; Job 
xxxiil. 32. The Talmud says, “So long as the temple stood, no 
Israelite was in distress ; for as often as he came to it full of sin 
and offered sacrifice, then his sin was forgiven and he departed a 
just man” (Scheettgen, i. p. 308). 

map’ éxetvoy. The expression is one of comparison, and of é¢se/f 
does not exclude the possibility of the Pharisee being justified in 
some smaller degree. Comp. xiii. 2, 4. But the context perhaps 
excludes it. Thus Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. iv. 36), ideogue 


420 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X VIII. 14, 15. 


alterum reprobatum, alterum justificatum. Also Euthym. (ad /oc.), 
6 Stkaudoas povov éavrov KatedixacOn mapa @cod, 6 S€ KaradiKdoas 
povov éavtTov edikatwOy rapa @cod. Aug., however, points out that 
the Scripture does not say that the Pharisee was condemned (£4. 
XXXVi. 4. 7). 


The readings are various, but ap’ éxeivov (% BL, Boh. Sah., Orig. Naz.) 
may be safely adopted: ad z//o (Vulg.) is a misrepresentation of this, and 
padov rap’ akewov Tov papicecov (D) an amplification of it. The 4 éxetvos 
(min. pauc.) of Elz. is a gloss; which, however, may have helped to produce 
the common reading # yap éxeivos (AEGHKM PQ etc.), IAP being 
changed to TAP. If 4 yap éxeivos (Tisch., Treg. mazg.) be adopted, it 
must be interrogative: ‘‘I say to you, this man went down to his house 
justified—or did the other do so?” Other Latin variations are pre z//um 
phariszum (a), mages quam ille pharisewus (bce), to which some add gui se 
exaltabat (fff,ilqr). % map’ éxetvov (Hofm. Keil) and #mep éxetvos (Hahn) 
are conjectures. 


Ste was 6 Sav, xt. Verbatim as xiv. 11 (where see note), 
which Weiss pronounces to be its original position, while its ap- 
pearance here is due to Lk. Why is it assumed that Jesus did 
not repeat His sayings ? 


The suggestion (Aug. Bede) that the Pharisee represents the Jews and the 
publican the Gentiles cannot be accepted. Nor need we suppose (Godet) that 
Lk. is here showing that the Pauline doctrine of justification was based on the 
teaching of Christ. There is nothing specially Pauline here, We are not told 
that the publican was justified by faith in Christ, but by confession of sin and 
prayer. The meaning is simple. Christ takes a crucial case. One generally 
recognized as a saint fails in prayer, while one generally recognized as a sinner 
succeeds. Why? Because the latter’s prayer is real, and the former’s not. 
The one comes in the spirit of prayer,—self-humiliation ; the other in the spirit 
of pride,—self-satisfaction. 


15-17. Little Children brought to Christ. Mt. xix. 13-15; 
Mk. x. 13-16. The narrative of Lk., which has been proceeding 
independently since ix. 51, here rejoins Mt. and Mk. The three 
narratives are almost verbatim alike. Where Lk. differs either he 
has an expression peculiar to himself, as ra Bpégy (ver. 15) or 
mpogekadéoaro (ver. 16); or he and Mk. agree against Mt., as 
in abtav dxrytae (ver. 15), epxecOar and rod @eod (ver. 16), Os av 
pa Sé€nrat, x... (ver. 17), where Mt. varies considerably in word- 
ing. Only in the kat before ya KwAvere (ver. 16) does Lk. agree 
with Mt. against Mk. 

15. Mpoogdepov 8 atte kai ta Bpépy. The d¢ and xat ra Bpédn 
are peculiar to Lk. For é¢ Mk. has caf and Mt. rore: for xal 7a 
Bpédy both have simply radia. “Now people were bringing to 
Him even their babes,” or “their babes also,” as well as sick 
folk. In any case Bpépos must be rendered here as in ii. 12, 16: 
comp. i. 41, 44; Acts vii. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 2. AV. has “babe,” 
“infant,” and “young child.” Vulg. has izfans throughout 


XVIII. 15-18.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 421 


anryta. Mt. says more distinctly, ras xeipas ériO} adrots Kat 
mpocevéntat. Blessing them is meant: comp. Gen. xlviili. 14, 15. 


The pres. subj. after imperf. indic. is a constr. that is freq. in LXX. It 
shows how the opt. is going out of use. But here it might be explained as 
expressing the thought of those who brought the babes, a thought put in a 
direct form for the sake of vividness: ‘‘that He may touch” for ‘‘ that He 
might touch.” Win. xli. b. 1. a, p. 360. 


émetinwv attots, Not because, as Chrysostom and Theophylact 
suggest, they thought that little children were unworthy to approach 
Him ; but because they thought it a waste of His time and an 
abuse of His kindness; or, as Jerome, followed closely by Bede, 
puts it, ewm in similitudinem hominum offerentium importunitate 
fassari. On the first anniversary of their birth Jewish children 
were sometimes brought to the Rabbi to be blest. 


Lk. has the imperf. in both places, rpocépepov . . . émeriuwyv: Mt. mpoc- 
avéxOnoav . . . éwerlunoav: Mk. rpocédepov . . . émerlunoar. 


16. mpocexadécato. Even if with B we omit aird, this would 
mean that He called the children (with their parents), and then 
addressed the disciples. Mk. has idov ... jyavaxrnce, Mt. 
‘simply «ier. 

ph koddete. “Cease to forbid.” The wording is almost identical 
in all three narratives. Jerome and Euthym. (on Mt. xix. 14) point 
out that Christ does not say rovrwy but ro.otrwr, ut ostenderet non 
atatem regnare sed mores. It is not these children, nor all chil- 
dren, but those who are childlike in character, especially in 
humility and trustfulness, who are best fitted for the Kingdom. 

17. Verbatim as in Mk. x. 15. Mt. gives a similar saying on 
a different occasion (xviii. 3, 4). The 8€&rat explains the rovovrwv : 
a child receives what is offered to it, in full trust that it is good for 
it, pydev Siaxpwvdpevos, pydé dudiBddAwv zrept airod (Euthym.). 

18-80. The Rich Young Ruler who preferred his Riches to 
the Service of Christ. Mt. xix. 16-30; Mk. x. 17-31. In all 
three narratives this section follows immediately upon the one 
about bringing children to Christ. This young ruler is humiliated 
by being told that there is still a great deal to be done before he 
is qualified for {wi aidvis. Thus the lessons supplement one 
another. The children, like the publican, are nearer the Kingdom 
than they could suppose themselves to be; the rich young man, 
like the Pharisee, is farther from it than he supposed himself to 
be. Those who can be benefited by being abased (9, 22), are 
abased; while those who cannot be harmed by being exalted (16), 
are exalted. Here again Lk. often agrees with Mk. in small 
details of wording against Mt., and only once (dxovcas in ver. 2 
with Mt. against Mk. 

18. dpxwv. Lk. alone tells us this, and we are in doubt 


422 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X VIII. 18, 19. 


he means byit. His being a veavicoxos, as Mt. tells us (xix. 20, 22), 
is rather against his being a member of the Sanhedrin or a ruler 
of a synagogue. Weiss, Neander, and others conjecture that 
veavioxos is an error, perhaps an inference drawn by Mt. from 
Christ’s charge, especially tia tov warépa cov, x.7.A. Certainly 
éx vedrnros (which is wanting in the best texts of Mt.) does not 
seem appropriate to a veavioxos. Yet Holtzmann supposes that 
veavioxos has been added through a misconception of é« vedryros. 
But the rich ruler’s self-confidence might easily make him pose as 
an older man than he really was. Keim seems to be nearer the 
truth when he says that “the whole impression is that of an eager 
and immature young man” (/es. of Vaz. v. p. 36). The statement 
of Mk., that he ran to Jesus and kneeled to Him (x. 17), indicates 
youthful eagerness. 

ti moujoas, k.t.4. See on x. 25, where the same question is 
asked. In Mt. the “good is transferred from ‘‘ Master” to “ what,” 
AiddoxaXe, ti dyafdv roujow; and hence Christ’s reply is different, 
Tt pe épwrds wept tov ayafov; The ruler thought that by some 
one act, perhaps of benevolence, he could secure eternal life: he 
was prepared for great expenditure. Similar questions were dis- 
cussed among the Rabbis: see Wetst. on Mt. xix. 16. 

19. Ti pe Ayers dyabdv; So also in Mk. In none of the 
three is there any emphasis on “ Me,” which is an enclitic. There 
is no instance in the whole Talmud of a Rabbi being addressed 
as “Good Master”: the title was absolutely unknown among the 
Jews. ‘This, therefore, was an extraordinary address, and perhaps 
a fulsome compliment. The Talmud says, ‘There is nothing else 
that is good but the Law.” ‘The explanation of some ancient and 
modern commentators, that Jesus is here speaking merely from 
the young man’s standpoint, is not satisfactory. “You suppose 
Me to be a mere man, and you ought not to call any human being 
good. ‘That title I cannot accept, unless I am recognized as 
God.”! The young ruler could not understand this; and the 
reply must have had some meaning for 47m. His defect was 
that he trusted too much in himself, too little in God. Jesus 
reminds him that there is only one source of goodness whether 
in action (Mt.) or in character (Mk. Lk.), viz. God. He Himself 
is no exception. His goodness is the goodness of God working 
in Him. “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He 
seeth the Father doing... . For as the Father hath life in 
Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in Him- 


1So Cyril, ad loc., El wh wemlorevxas dre Oebs elu, ws TA wbyy Tpérovra 
77 dvurdty pice mepirédekds pot, Kal dyabdv amoKanets, dv 0H Kal vevdurKas 
&vOpwmrov elvar kara o€; and Ambrose, Quzd me dicts bonum, quem negas 
Deum? Non ergo se bonum negat, sed Deum designat. See also Jerome, 
Basil, Epiphanius, etc. Maldonatus and Wordsworth follow. 


XVIII. 19-22.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 423 


self... . I can of Myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and 
My judgment is righteous, because I seek not My own will, but 
the will of Him that sent Me” (Jn. v. 19-30). Von se magistrum 
non esse, sed magistrum absque Deo nullum bonum esse testatur 
(Bede). ‘There is no need to add to this the thought that the 
goodness of Jesus was the goodness of perfect development (see 
on ii. 52), whereas the goodness of God is that of absolute per- 
fection (Weiss on Mk. x. 18). 


ovdels ayalds el ph els 6 Oeds. So also Mk. Here the article is 
wanting in SB. The saying appears in a variety of forms in quotations, 
ustin has two: ovdels dya6ds ef uh pdvos 6 Oeds 6 moijoas Ta TavTa (AfZol. 
1. 16), and els éorly dyads, 6 mariyp pou 6 év Tots ovpavois (Try. Ci.). 
Marcion seems to have read els éorly dyads, 6 Oeds 6 marjp. In Hippol. 
Philosoph. v. 1 els early dyabbs, 6 marhp év rots odpavois, and a similar 
reading appears four times in Clem. Hom. See Zeller, Apostelg. pp. 32 ff., 
Eng. tr. pp. 105-119, and WH. ii. App. pp. 14, 15. 


20. tds évtodds oidas. Jesus securos ad Legem remittit ; con- 
tritos Evangelice consolatur (Beng.). This is, however, not the 
main point. Nothing extraordinary or not generally known is 
required for salvation: the observance of well-known commands 
will suffice. 


Here again Lk. exactly agrees with Mk., except that he places the 
seventh before the sixth commandment, and omits, as Mt. does, ui) azro- 
orepions, which perhaps represents the tenth. In Rom. xiii. 9, Jas. ii. II, 
and in Cod. B of Deut. v. 17 adultery is mentioned before murder. Philo 
says that in the second mevrds of the decalogue adultery is placed first as 
Béy.orov aouknudrwy (De decem orac. xxiv., xxxil.). In all three of the Gospels 
the fifth commandment is placed last and none of the first four is quoted. 
In Mt. they are in the same form as in Exod. xx. and Deut. v., Ov govevoes, 
k.7.A4. So also Rom. xiii. 9. In Mk. and Jas ii. 11, My povevogs. 


21. taita wdvta epdata ex vedtytos. Not so much a boast, 
as an expression of dissatisfaction. “I wanted to be told of 
something special and sublime; and I am reminded of duties 
which I have been performing all my life.” The reply exhibits 
great ignorance of self and of duty, but is perfectly sincere. 


That it was possible to keep the whole Law is an idea which is frequent 
in the Talmud. Abraham, Moses, and Aaron were held to have done so. 
R. Chanina says to the Angel of Death, ‘‘ Bring me the book of the Law, 
and see whether there is anything written in it which I have not kept” 
(Schcettg. i. pp. 160, 161. See also Edersh. Z. & 7. i. p. 536). 

Here, as in Mt. xix. 20; Gen. xxvi. 5; Exod. xii. 17, xx. 6, we have 
the act. of @uAdrrw: Mk. x. 20; Lev. xviii. 4, xx, 8, 22, xxvi. 3, the mid. 
without difference of sense. 


22. dkotcas S€ 6 “Inoots. Mk. has the striking euBAdlas 
airG jydarnoey abtév, which is strong evidence that behind Mk. 
is one who was intimate with Christ From jydryce mdvta 


424 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XVIII. 22-24, 


Toryoov, and axodovGe por (v. 27, ix. 59) we may conjecture that 
this was a call to become an Apostle. 

“Ere €v cou Netwer. Mk. has & oe torepet. Mt. transfers the 
words to the young man, ti ér torepd; Christ neither affirms 
nor denies the ruler’s statement of his condition. Assuming it 
to be correct, there is still something lacking, viz. detachment 
from his wealth. In what follows we have two charges, one to 
sell and distribute; the other to follow Christ: and the first is 
preparatory to the second. But we may not separate them and 
make the first the one thing lacking and the second the answer to 
ri wojoas in ver. 18. In eers Oyoavpov ev Tots odpavots we have 
a clear reference to wiv aidvoy, and this promise is attached 
to the first charge. The mdvra (comp. vi. 30, vii. 35, ix. 43, xi. 4) 
and the compound 81d80s (xi. 22; Acts iv. 35; elsewhere only Jn. 
vi. 11) are here peculiar to Lk. 


Mt., having transferred the words about ‘lacking something yet” to the 
rich young man, gives Christ’s reply El @éAes 7éAecos elvae in place of “Eve 
év got delmet. These words cannot mean a perfection superior to the fulfil- 
ment of the Law, for no such perfection is possible (xvii. 10). A miscon- 
ception of this point led to the distinction between the performance of duty 
and moral perfection, which has produced much error in moral theology. 
Clem. Alex. rightly says, érav elay El Oédets Téevos yevéoOan (ste), TwAjoas TA 
brdpxovta dds TTw ots, éhéyxer TOV Kavxwpevoy érl TH Tdcas Tas evTohas eK 
vedrnros TeTnpynKévat’ ov yap meTAnpwKer 76, “Ayaryjoes Tov TAnoloy gov ws 
éaurév: rére 5é, rd Tod Kuplov cuvrederovpmevos, edvddoKeTo Ov aydmnv peTa- 
dddvac (Strom. iii. 6, p. 537, ed. Potter). Neander, Z. 7. C. § 226, Eng. tr. 


6 
E se class. Grk. this use of delaecv for éAdelzrev is mostly poetical. 

For éiddos (B E-F etc.) $A DLM RA have dvs from Mt. and Mk. And 
for év rots ovpdvos (BD) NALR have év ovpdvos from Mt., and P, Vulg. 
Goth. have év ovpdyw from Mk. The plur. is supported by zz cw@/s (ade), 
but the article is doubtful. 


23. mepiumos. Stronger than Avrovmevos (Mt. Mk.), to which 
Mk. adds the graphic orvyvdcas (Ezek. xxxii. 10; [Mt. xvi. 3]). 
For zepiAvzos comp. Mk. vi. 26, xiv. 34; Mt. xxvi. 38. He wanted 
to follow Christ’s injunctions, but at present the cost seemed to 
him to be too great. 

movctos opddpa. The statement explains, and perhaps in 
some measure excuses, his distress. He possessed a great deal 
more than a boat and nets; and Peter, James, and John were 
not told to sell their boats and nets and give the proceeds to the 
poor; because their hearts were not wedded to them. 

24, Mads ducKkddws. All three have this adv., which occurs 
nowhere else in bibl. Grk. Clem. Alex. seems to allude to the 
saying when he writes 6 Adyos tots teAwvas A€yer SvoKdAWS Two- 
Onoerar (Strom. v. 5. p. 662, ed. Potter). Lk. omits the departure 
of the ruler, which took place before these words were uttered. 
Mk. alone records (x. 24) the consternation which they excited in 


XVIII. 24, 25.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 425 


the disciples, and Christ’s repetition of them. It was perhaps 
largely for the sake of Judas that these stern words about the 
perils of wealth were uttered to them. 

25. In the Talmud an elephant passing through the eye of a 
needle is twice used of what is impossible; also a camel dancing 
in a very small corn measure. See Lightfoot, Schcettgen, and 
Wetstein, ad Joc. For edxomdtepov see small print on v. 23. The 
reading xdpiAov= “cable” here and Mt. xix. 24 is an attempt to 
tone down a strong statement. It is found only in a few late 
MSS. The work xdpsAos occurs only in Suidas and a scholiast 
on Aristoph. Vesf. 1030. Some would give the meaning of 
“cable” to xaynAos (so Cyril on Mt. xix. 24), but no doubt the 
animal is meant. Others would make the “needle’s eye” into a 
narrow gateway for foot-passengers; but this also is erroneous. 
See Expositor, 1st series, iii. p. 369, 1876; WH. ii. App. p. 151. 
For BeAdvys, which occurs nowhere else in bibl. Grk., Mt. and 
Mk. have fadidos, and for tpywaros Mk. has tpypadtas. Hobart 
claims both BeAcvyn and tpyya as medical, the former with good 
reason (p. 60). 


Celsus said that this saying of Christ was borrowed along with others from 
Plato. But the passage which he quoted from the Zaws (v. p. 742) merely 
says that a man cannot be at once very good and very rich. There is nothing 
about a camel or a needle. Orig. Com. Cels. vi. 16. 1. The saying in the 
Koran (vii. 38), ‘‘ Neither shall they enter into paradise, until a camel 
through the eye of a needle,” is probably taken from the Gospels (Sale, p. 108). 


It is specially to be noted that this hard saying about the 
difficulty of those who have riches entering into the Kingdom of 
God is in all three Gospels and not merely in the one which is 
supposed to be Ebionite in tone. Comp. Mt. vi. 19-21; Mk. xii. 
41, 42. Lk. omits the great amazement, éferAjocovro odddpa 
(Mt.), wepusoas eferAjooovto (Mk.), which this second utterance 
on the impediments caused by wealth excited in the disciples. 


The Latin translator of Origen’s comm. on Mt. xix. has the following exe 
tract from ‘‘a certain Gospel which is called According to the Hebrews.” But 
neither this preface nor the extract are in the Greek text of Origen. Dzxit ad 
eum alter divitum, Magister, guid bonum factens vivam? Dixit et, Homo, 
legem et prophetas fac. Respondit ad eum, Fect. Dixit et, Vade, vende omnia 
quz possides et divide pauperibus et vent, seguere me.  Coepit autem dives 
scalpere caput suum (sic), et non placutt et. Et dixtt ad eum Dominus, Quo- 
modo dices Legem fect et prophetas? quoniam scriptum est in lege Diliges 
proximum tuum stcut te ipsum, et ecce multi fratres tut, filit Abrahz, amict? 
Sunt stercore, morientes pre fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis, et non 
egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad cos. Et conversus dixit Simoni adisctpulo 
suo, sedentt apud se, Simon, filt Johannx, factlius est camelum intrare per 
JSoramen acus quam divitem in regnum celorum. See also the fragment quoted 
from the narrative of the man with the withered hand (Lk. vi. 8). These 
specimens explain why the Gosfel according to the Hebrews was allowed to pass 
into »blivion, and it is difficult to believe that this Nazarene Gospel was the 


426 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X VIII. 25-80. 


original Hebrew of our Mt. If it was, ‘‘ our Greek Evangelist must have been 
a most unfaithful translator” (Salmon, /z¢. to V.7. p. 166, 5th ed.). We 
may add that he must have been a person of very superior taste and ability. 


26. Kal tis Stvara. cwOhvat; Not “what rick man” (Weiss), 
but “what person of any description”: Num. xxiv. 23. The 
whole world either possesses or aims at possessing wealth. If, 
then, what every one desires is fatal to salvation, who can be 
saved? The «at adds emphasis to the question, which arises out 
of what has just been said: comp. x. 29; Jn. ix. 36; 2 Cor. 
ii. 2. 

27. Ta dduvata mapa dvOpdmos. This shows that ver. 25 
means an impossibility, not merely something difficult or highly 
improbable. It is a miracle of grace when those who have wealth 
do not put their trust in it. Lk. omits the steadfast look 
(€BAdpas) with which Mt. and Mk. say that this declaration was 
accompanied. He sympathizes with their perplexity and hastens 
to remove it. 


Not only before proper names which begin with a vowel (Mt. xxviii. 15 3 
Jn. i. 40), but also in other cases, apd sometimes is found unelided ; rapa 
Guaprwhy (xix. 7). This is commonly the case before dy@pwros: comp. Mt. 
xix. 26; Mk. x. 27; Jn. v. 34, 41; Gal. i. 12, 


Suvata mapa 7 Od. Zaccheus proved this (xix. I-10). 
Comp. Zech. viii. 6; Job xlii. 2. For parallels from profane 
writers see Grotius and Wetstein on Mt. xix. 26. But zapa 
avOpuros and rapa 7G Océ certainly do not mean hominum judicio 
and Dei judicio (Fri. Ew.): they refer to what each can do. Man 
cannot, but God can, break the spell which wealth exercises over 
the wealthy. Comp. i. 37; Gen. xviii. 14; Jer. xxxil. 17, 27; 
Zech. viii. 6. 

28. efmev 8¢ & Mérpos. His being the one to speak is 
characteristic; but he does not speak in a spirit of boastfulness. 
Rather it is the reaction from their consternation which moves 
him to speak: sfe ex verbis Salvatoris concepta (Beng.). He 
wants to be assured that God’s omnipotence has been exerted on 
their behalf, and that they may hope to enter the Kingdom. Mt. 
adds ri dpa éorac jpiv; Note the efwev Sé, which neither Mt. 
nor Mk. has. 

29. *Auhv Aéyw Spiv. In all three: it is a declaration of great 
moment. Not only has God done this for the Twelve, but for 
many others: and every one who has had grace to surrender is 
sure of his reward. Lk. alone has yvvaixa, and alone omits 
dypovs, among the things surrendered. The omission is note- 
worthy in connexion with his supposed Ebionitism. 

80. wodNamAaciova. Job’s family was exactly restored; his 
goods wére exactly doubled. The dramatic compensations of the 


XVIII. 30.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 427 


O.T. are far exceeded by the moral and spiritual compensations 
of the Gospel: and it is evident from this passage that material 
rewards are included also. What is lost in the family is replaced 
many times over in Christ and in the Church. This would apply 
in a special way to converts from heathen families, who found 
loving fathers and brethren to replace the cruel relations who cast 
them out. Lk. and Mt. omit (but for no imaginable dogmatic 
reasons) the important qualification pera duwypav. ‘He only is 
truly rich,” said the Rabbi Meir, “ who enjoys his riches.” The 
Christian sacrifices what is not enjoyed for what brings real 
happiness. 
Mk, has ékarovram)aclova. D supported by many Latin authorities 
(a bedeff,ilqr, Cypr. Ambr. Aug. Bede) here has émram)\aclova. Cyprian 
quotes the passage thrice, and each time has septzes tantum: in isto tempore. 
WH. conjectures ‘‘some extraneous source, written or oral.” Vulg. and f 
have mu/lio plura in hoc tempore. 
Between Ad8y (BD M, Arm.), which may come from Mk., and doAdBy 
(SW APR etc.) it is not easy to decide. With droddBy comp. xxiii. 41; 
Rom. i. 27; Col. iii. 24; 2Jn. 8. It is often used with 7. puoddv (Xen. 
Anab. vii. 7. 14; Her. viii. 137. 6). Vulg. has e¢ non reczpzat. 


év TH katp@ toUTw. Note the contrast with 7 aidve: not merely 
in this world, but in this season. So also in Mk. Comp. ev 7é 
viv xatpd (Rom. ili. 26, viii. 18), and tov Kaipoy tov éverrnKdTa 
(Heb. ix. 9), which means the same: see Wsctt. 

év TH aide TH epxopévw. “In the age which is in process of 
being realized.” See on vii. 19, and comp. Eph. i. 21, ii. 7; Heb. 
vi. 5. Bengel remarks that Scripture in general is more explicit 
about temporal punishments than temporal rewards, but about 
eternal rewards than eternal punishments, 


Millennarians made use of this promise as an argument for their views. 
It would be in the mz//ennium that the faithful would receive literally a 
hundredfold of what they had given up for the Kingdom’s sake: zon zntelli- 
gentes quod si tn ceteris digna sit repromissio, in uxoribus appareat turpitudo ; 
ut qui unam pro Domino dimiserit, et centum recipiat in futuro (Jerome on Mt. 
xix. 20). 

Lk. omits the saying about last being first and first last, having already 
recorded it in a different connexion (xiii. 30). 


81-384. The Third Announcement of the Passion. Mt. xx. 
17-19; Mk. x. 32-34. For previous announcements (just before 
and just after the Transfiguration) see ix. 22, 44. The raising of 
Lazarus should probably be placed here. The decree of the San- 
hedrin for the arrest of Jesus had very likely already been passed 
when our Lord made this new announcement of His death. 
Apostolis sepius dixit et indies expressius, ut in posterum testes 
essent prescientia tpsius (Grotius). 


‘The ecltrep (ver. 31) is the one item which Lk. and Mt, have in common 
against Mk. In several expressions in vv. 32, 33 Lk. agrees with Mk, 


428 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIII. 31-33. 


against Mt. The elwev rpés, the rdvra (see on vii. 35, ix. 43, xi. 4), 7a 
veypaupméva (see on xxil. 37), and all of ver. 34 are peculiar to Lk.’s 
account. 


81. NaparaBdév. “Took to Himself” (ix. 28, xi. 26; Acts xv. 
39). The notion of taking aséde, away from the multitude, is 
involved, but is not prominent. In class. Grk. it is freq. of taking 
a wife, a companion, an ally, or adopting ason. This announce- 
ment specially concerned the Twelve who were to accompany 
Him to Jerusalem. See the graphic account of their behaviour 
Mixa 2. 

Sa tv mpopytav. This is the regular expression for the 
utterances of prophecy: they are spoken dy means of the Prophets.” 
The Prophet is not an originating agent, but an instrument. But 
this is the only place in which the phrase occurs in Lk., who 
says little to his Gentile readers about the fulfilment of prophecy. 
Comp. Mt. 1. 22, ii. 5, 15,23, iv. 14, vill. 17, xil; my eeaiegeuenes 
In Mt. ii. 17 and iii. 3 io is a false reading. Comp. Hag. ii. 2.— 
See Gould on Mk. x. 33, 34. 

TO vi Tod dvOpsmov. Once more an amphibolous expression, 
It can be taken with either teXecOyjoerat OF Ta yeypappeva, If 
with the former it may mean either “dy the Son of Man” (which 
is not probable, for it is not what He does, but what others do to 
Him that is predicted), or “unto the Son of Man” (RV. Hahn, 
Nosgen). Comp. évarAnpotra: airous 4 mpodyreia (Mt. xiii. 14). 
But for this Lk. elsewhere has év 7G vid 7. avOp. (xxii. 37). It 
seems better to take the dat. with ra yeypappéva: “for the Son 
of Man,” ze. prescribed for Him as His course (Weiss, Godet), or 
“of the Son of Man” (Vulg. Wic. Tyn. Cov. Cran. Rhem, AV. 
Alf.). Hence the ancient gloss in the text of D, zepi rod viod 
7.0. Wiis. 4,/p. 266. Green, p. 100. 

32. mapadobjcetat yap tots eOveowv. This is a new element of 
definiteness in the prophecy, and it almost carries with it, what Mt. 
xx. 19 distinctly expresses, that the mode of death will be cruci- 
fixion. It is said that this prediction has been made more definite 
by the Evangelist, who has worded it in accordance with ac- 
complished facts. But, in that case, why were not ix. 22 and 44 
made equally definite? That Christ should gradually reveal more 
details is in harmony with probability. Lk., however, omits the 
high priests and scribes, and their condemning Christ to death 
before handing Him over to the heathen, although both Mt. (xx. 
18) and Mk. (x. 33) say that Jesus predicted these details on this 
occasion. Here Lk. alone has tGpicbyoerar (xi. 45; Acts xiv. 5; 
elsewhere twice). 

33. TH pepo TH Tpity. Mk. has the less accurate pera tpets 
yeépas, Which can hardly have been invented to fit the facts. 
While the prediction of His death might shake the disciples’ faith 


XVIII. 33, 84.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 429 


in His Messiahship, the prediction of His rising again was calculated 
to establish it. 

84. Kat adtol ot8€v tovTwy cuvikav. Comp. ii. 50. Note the 
characteristic cal abrodand @v Kkexpuppévov. Lk. alone mentions 
the appeal to prophecy (ver. 31), and he alone states—with three- 
fold emphasis—that the Twelve did not at all understand. But 
Mt. and Mk. 7//ustraze this dulness of apprehension by the request 
of the sons of Zebedee for the right and left hand places in the 
Kingdom, which Lk. omits. Their minds were too full of an 
earthly kingdom to be able to grasp the idea of a Messiah who 
was to suffer and to die: and without that they could not under- 
stand His rising again, and did not at first believe when they 
were told that He had risen. Their dulness was providential, 
and it became a security to the Church for the truth of the 
Resurrection. The theory that they believed, because they ex- 
pected that He would rise again, is against all the evidence. Comp. 
1X. 45. 

aes én aitév. This was changed when He dujvorter 
abray tov vody Tod cuvévat Tas ypadds (xxiv. 45). For dm adtav 
comp. ix. 45, X. 21, xix. 42; 2 Kings iv. 27; Ps. cxviii. 19?; Is. 
xl. 27; Jer. xxxix. 17. This statement is not identical with either 
of the other two. It explains the fact that they not only did not 
understand any of this at the time, but “did not get to know 
(éyivwcxov) the things that were said.” 

35-43. The Healing of Blind Bartimzus at Jericho. Mt. 
xx. 29-34; Mk. x. 46-52. This miracle probably took place in 
the week preceding that of the Passion. 


The three narratives have exercised the ingenuity of harmonizers. Lk. and 
Mk. have only one blind man; Mt. again mentions two (comp. Mt. ix. 27). 
Lk. represents the miracle as taking place when Jesus was approaching Jericho ; 
Mt. and Mk. as taking place when He was leaving it. Lk. says that Jesus 
healed with a command, dvd8\eYov; Mk. with a word of comfort, traye, 7 
mlorts gov céowkév oe; Mt. with a touch, #Waro rév éuudrwv atrdv. Only those 
who have a narrow view respecting inspiration and its effects will be concerned 
to reconcile these differences and make each of the three verbally exact. These 
make many suggestions. I. There were ¢hree different healings (Euthym. on 
Mt. xx. 34). 2. As Christ entered Jericho, Bartimzeus cried for help, and was 
not healed ; he then joined a second blind man, and with him made an appeal 
as Jesus left Jericho, and then both were healed (Calvin and Maldon. followed 
by Wordsw.). 3. One blind man was healed as He entered, Bartimzeus, and 
another as He left (Aug. Quxst. Evang. ii. 48). 4. One was healed as He entered 
and one as He left; and Mt. combines the first with the second (even Neander 
inclines to this, Z. 7. C. § 236, note). 5. There were two Jerichos, Old and 
New, and Lk. means that Jesus was approaching New Jericho, Mt. and Mk. 
that He was leaving Old Jericho (Macknight), although there is no evidence 
that Old Jericho was still inhabited, or that ‘‘ Jericho” without epithet could at 
this time mean anything but the city which was given by Antony to Cleopatra, 
and afterwards redeemed by Herod the Great (Jos. Amz. xv. 4. 2, 4). See 
Stanley, Sz#. & Pal. p. 310; also some good remarks by Sadler on Mk. x. 46, 
to the effect that “‘the inspiration of the Evangelists did not extend to minutiz 


430 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIIL 35-38. 


of this sort” ; and by Harvey Goodwin against forced explanations (Gosf. of 
S. Luke, p. 311, Bell, 1865). 6. See below on ver. 35. The narrative of Mk., 
who gives the name Bartimzeus and other details, is probably the most exact of 
the three. See Wsctt. utr. to the Gospels, ch. vii. p. 367, 7th ed. 

The attempts of Hitzig and Keim to use the name, which in Syriac may per- 
haps mean ‘‘son of the blind,” to discredit the whole narrative, are rightly con- 
demned by Weiss (Z. /. ii. p. 439, Eng. tr. iii. p. 222). Strauss suggests that 
the name comes from ézrerluwy (ver. 39; Mk. x. 48) and émertunoe (Mt. xx. 31) 
(Z. J. §71, p. 429, 1864). For other possible meanings see Lightfoot, Hor. 
Heb. ad loc. 


35. év To eyyilew adriv eis “leperxd. The translation, “When 
He was not far from Jericho,” z.e..as He had just left it (Grotius, 
Nosgen), is perhaps the worst device for harmonizing Lk. with 
Mt. and Mk. The meaning of éyyi€ew is decisive; and there is 
the «is in addition. Both Herod the Great and Archelaus had 
beautified and enlarged Jericho, which at this time must have pre- 
sented a glorious appearance (D.4.? art. Jericho”). It was here 
that Herod had died his horrible death (Jos. B. /. i. 33. 6, 7). 
Note the characteristic éyé€vero and év 74 ¢. infin. See on iii. 21, 
and comp. 2 Sam. xv. 5. 


In class. Grk. éyylfew is not common, and usually has the dat. In bibl. 
Grk. it is very frequent; sometimes with dat., esp. in the phrase éyylfewv ro 
@e@ (Jas. iv. 8; Exod. xix. 22; Lev. x. 3; Is. xxix, 13, etc.); sometimes 
with mpés (Gen. xlv. 4, xlviii. 10; Exod. xix. 21, etc.) ; and also with els 
(xix. 29, xxiv. 28; Mt. xxi. 1; Mk. xi. 1; Tob. vi. 10, xi. 1). In N.T. 
éyylfew is always intrans. 

For érarav (8 B D L, Orig.) AP Q Rete. have rposarrév. Comp. xvi. 3. 


836. dxXou Statropevopévouv. The caravan of pilgrims going up to 
the Passover. See on vi. 1 and on xi. 29; also Edersh. Ast. of 
J. N. p. 255, ed. 1896. Leaving His place of retirement (Jn. 
xi. 54, 55), Jesus had joined this caravan ; and it is probable that 
He came to Jericho in order to do so. The crowd was there, 
according to all three narratives, defore the miracle took place. 
This shows how untenable is the view of Keim, Holtzmann, and 
Weiss, that Lk. has purposely transferred the healing from the 
departure to the entry in order to account for the crowd at the 
meeting with Zaccheeus (xix. 3): the miracle produced the crush 
of people. But according to Lk. himself the crowd was there 
before the miracle. 

énuvOdvero th etn todtTo. In N.T. rvuv@dvopae is almost 
peculiar to Lk. (xv. 26, where see note; Acts iv. 7, x. 18, 29, etc.) 
Omitting av with NABP etc. against DKLMQRX, “He 
enquired what this was,” not “ what this possibly might be.” Mt. 
it; 4S Jue ivi 52: 

37. For dmfyyetAav see on viii. 20; for Nafwpatos see on iv. 34 
(Mk. here has Naapyvds, and Mt. omits the epithet); and for 
wapépxerat see ON Vil. 4. 


XVIII. 88-48.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 43! 


88. éBoncev. Comp. ix. 38, xvii. 13. 

vié Aaveid’. This shows that he recognizes Jesus as the 
Messiah (Mt. ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xxi. 9, 15). It is not this which 
the multitude resent, but the interruption: comp. v. 15. They 
regard him as an ordinary beggar, asking for money. And Jesus 
was perhaps teaching as He went. Mk. tells us how the attitude 
of the people changed towards him, when they saw that Jesus had 
decided to listen to him. See Gould on Mk. x. 47. 

89. otyjon. Excepting Rom. xvi. 25 and 1 Cor. xiv. 28, 30, 34, 
the verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (ix. 36, xx. 26 ; Acts xii. 17, xv. 
12,13). Mt.and Mk. have ow7év, which 8 A Q R, Orig. read here. 

éxpafey. Note the change of verb and tense from é@éyoe. 
While Bodw is specially an intelligent cry for help, xpafw is often an 
instinctive cry or scream, a loud expression of strong emotion. In 
class. Grk. xpaZw is often used of the cries of animals. The two 
words are sometimes joined (Dem. De Cor. p. 271; Aristoph. 
Plut. 722). Mt. and Mk. have xpaw in both places, and Mt. has 
the aor. in both. The man’s persistency is evidence of his faith, 
which Christ recognizes. 

40. orafets. See on ver. 11: the others have ords. Excepting 
in Mt. and Acts, where the verb is common, xeAevw occurs here 
only in N.T. In LXX it is found only in the Apocrypha. Mk. 
here describes the man’s casting away! his iuarioy and leaping up 
to come to Jesus, when the people had passed on to him Christ’s 
command. Christ’s making those who had rebuked him to be the 
bearers of His invitation to him is to be noted. 


With the constr., éyyloavros avrov . . . atrév instead of éyylcayra, comp. 
xii, 36, xv. 20, xvii, 12, xxii. 10, 53; Acts iv. 1, xxi. 17. 


41. Ti cot Akers trorjow; Not that Jesus gives him carte 
blanche (Godet) to have anything that he likes; but that He will 
make clear to the multitude that this is no ordinary beggar, but 
one who has faith to ask to be healed. For the constr. see 
on ix. 54. Both Mt. (xiv. 19, xx. 34) and Lk. (xix. 5) use dva- 
BAeww in both senses, “look up” and “recover sight.” 

42. | wiotts cov. The multitude had called Jesus “the 
Nazarene,” and had tried to silence the blind man. He had called 
Him the “Son of David,” and had persevered all the more. Mt. 
says that Jesus touched the eyes, but omits these words. Comp. 
Vil. 50, Vili. 48, xvii. I9. 

43. mapaxpiya. Mk. has ei@vs: comp. v. 25, vili. 44, 55; 
xxii. 60. Lk. alone records that the man glorified God, and that 
the people followed his example ; comp. ix. 43. The poetical word 
aivos is not rare in LXX, but occurs in N.T. only here and in a - 


1 Tn Syr-Sin. Timai Bar-Timai ‘‘ rose and ‘ook up his garment, and came to 
Jesus.” Comp. Jn. xxi. 7. 


432 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIx. 1, % 


quotation from Ps. viii. 2 in Mt. xxi. 16. With afvoy dddva comp. 
ddgar diddvac (xvii. 18; Rom. iv. 20; Rev. iv. g). 


It is worth while to collect together the characteristics of Lk.’s style which 
are very conspicuous in this section, especially when it is compared with Mt. 
and Mk. In ver. 35 we have éyévero, év T@c. infin., and érattGy (only 
here and xvi. 3); in ver. 36, duamopevomévov (vi. I, xiii. 22) and éruvOdvero 
(xv. 26); in ver. 37, dmajyyerday (vill. 20) and mapépxerae (vii. 4); in 
ver. 38, €Bdycep (ili. 4, ix. 38, xviii. 38); in ver. 39, ovyjon (ix. 36, xx. 26) 
and atrés; in ver. 43, mapaxphma (v. 25) and mas (vii. 35, xi. 4). In all 
these cases, either other expressions are used by Mt. and Mk., or they omit the 
idea which Lk. thus expresses. 


XIX. 1-10. §The Visit to Zacchzeus, the Tax-collector of 
Jericho. The on other grounds improbable conjecture, that we 
have here a distorted variation of the Call of Matthew, the Tax- 
collector of Capernaum, is excluded by the fact that Lk. has 
recorded that event (v. 27-32). Even if the two narratives were 
far more similar than they are, there would be no good reason for 
doubting that two such incidents had taken place. The case of 
Zacchzeus illustrates the special doctrine of this Gospel, that no 
one is excluded from the invitation to the Kingdom of God. The 
source from which Lk. obtained the narrative seems to have been 
Aramaic. In time it is closely connected with the preceding 
section. 

1. Sinpxeto Thy “lepexd. ‘‘ He was passing through Jericho,” and 
the meeting took place inside the city. For the verb see on ii. 15, 
and for the constr. comp. ii. 35; Acts xii. 10, xiii. 6, xiv. 24, etc. 
Apparently the meeting with Zacchzeus was what detained Him in 
Jericho: otherwise He would have gone through without staying : 
comp. xxiv. 28. 

2. dvopatt kadovpevos Zaxxatos. For the dat. comp. i. 61. The 
name, which means “ pure,” shows him to have been a Jew: Ezra 
ii. 9; Neh. vii. 14. Tertullian says, Zaccheus, etst allophylus, for- 
tasse tamen aliqua notitia scripturarum ex commercio Judaico affiatus 
(Adv. Marcion. iv. 37. 1). But the Jews murmured because Jesus 
lodged with a man that was a sinner. They would have said a 
heathen, if it had been true. See below on ver. 9. The Clementines 
make Zacchzus a companion of Peter, who appoints him, much 
against his wish, to be bishop of Czsarea (Hom. iii. 63; Ltecog. 
iii. 66); and the Afost. Const. say that he was succeeded by 
Cornelius (vii. 46). Clem. Alex. says he was identified with 
Matthias (.S¢rom. iv. 6. p. 579). The Talmud mentions a Zacchzeus 
who lived at Jericho and was father of the celebrated Rabbi 
Jochanan. He might be of the same family as this Zacchzus. 
The use of avyp here (comp. i. 27, viii. 41, xxiii. 50) rather than 
avOpwrros (comp. ii. 25, vi. 6) perhaps is no mark of dignity: see 
ver. 7. 


XIX. 2-4] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 433 


kal adtés Hv GpxiteAdvns Kat abtds mAovcos. Note the double 
kal av7os, and see on v. 14 and vi 20, 


The second xal adrés (BK UTI, Vulg.) is doubtful: om. D, de; xat ores 
fv (AQR); kat qv (8 L, Boh. Goth.). The last may be right. 


épxirehvns. This is evidently an official title, and means 
more than that Zacchzeus was a very rich tax-collector (Didon). 
Had that been the meaning, we should have 67 or yap instead of 
kai, Perhaps we may render, “‘Commissioner of Taxes.” The 
word occurs nowhere else, and the precise nature of the office can- 
not be ascertained. Probably he was intermediate between the 
portitores and the publicant, and by the Romanus would have been 
called magister. Jericho, as a large frontier city, through which 
much of the carrying trade passed, and which had a large local 
trade in costly balsams, would be a likely place for a commissioner 
of taxes. This is the sixth notice of the tax-collectors, all favour- 
able, in this Gospel (ili. 12, v. 27, Vil. 29, XV. I, XVili. 10). 

8. é{yte iSeiv. Not like Herod (xxiii. 8), but like the Greeks 
(Jn. xii. 21). He had heard of Him, and perhaps as mixing freely 
with publicans and sinners. ama notum vultu noscere cupiebat 
(Grotius). For the indic. after ris dependent comp. Acts xxi. 33. 

oUK €dUvato amd Tod OxAou. The multitude was the source of the 
hindrance. Comp. xxi. 26, xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14, xxii. 113; Jn. 
xxl. 6; Heb. v. 7. His being unable to free himself from the 
throng is not the meaning of the dé. In class. Grk. we should 
have ova with acc. For Auta see on ii. 52. 

4. cis 16 EumpooOev. Strengthens the zpodpaywy. He ran on 
to that part of the city which was in front of Christ’s route. There 
is nothing to show that he wished to Ade, and that Christ’s call to 
him was like His making the woman with the issue disclose her 
act (Trench). On the other hand, there is no evidence that he 
braved the derision of the crowd. We may say, however, that no 
thought of personal dignity or propriety deterred him from his 
purpose. 

TR. omits «ls 76, which is sufficiently attested by NBL, frocessit in 
priore et (e), antecedens ab ante (d), D having rpodaBdv for rpodpapsvy. 


cuxopopeay. “A fig-mulberry,” quite a different tree from the 
fig and the mulberry and the common sycomore. Its fruit is like 
the fig, and its leaf like the mulberry, and hence the name. The 
ov«apvos Of xvii. 6 is commonly held to be the mulberry, but 
may be another name for the fig-mulberry, as Groser thinks. The 
fig-mulberry “«ecalls the English oak, and its shade is most pleas- 
ing. It is consequently a favourite wayside tree. . . . It is very 
easy to climb, with its short trunk, and its wide lateral branches 
forking out in all directions” (Tristram, Wat. Hist. of B. p. 398). 

28 


434 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING [fo S. LUKE [XIx.4-8. 


The MSS. vary much, but all early uncials except A have -opéa and not 
sHopala ; and -uopéa is much better attested than -uwpéa or -uwpala. The 
common form is cuxdpopos. 

With éxelvys se. 6500 comp. molas, v. 19. 

For the sudden change of subject, dvéBy .. . fueAXev, comp. xiv. 5, 
xv, I5, xvii. 2; and for the subjunctive after a past tense, dvéBy... Iva t5y, 
comp. vi. 7, xviii. 15, 39; Jn. iv. 8, vii. 32. 

5. Zaxxate. There is no need to assume that Jesus had super- 
natural knowledge of the name: Jn. iv. 17, 18 is not parallel. 
Jesus might hear the people calling to Zacchzeus, or might enquire. 
And He seems not to use His miraculous power of knowledge 
when He could obtain information in the usual way (Mk. viii. 5; 
Jn. xi. 34). The explanation that He thereby showed Zacchzus 
that He knew all about him, is not adequate. Would Zacchzeus 
have inferred this from being addressed by name? 

omrevoas katéByO. He had made haste to see Christ: he must 
make haste to receive Him. <Accepit plus quam sperabat, qui, quod 

otuit, fecit (Maldon.). As in the case of Nathanael (Jn. i. 47), 
Feces knew the goodness of the man’s heart. Here supernatural 
knowledge, necessary for Christ’s work, is quite in place. For 
omevoew see on ii. 16. 

onpepov yap év TH oikw gov. First, with emphasis. ‘‘ This very 
day; in thy Zouse.” For Set of the Divine counsels see on iv. 43. 
Taken in conjunction with xaradtoa (ver. 7), petvar possibly means 
“to pass the night.” But neither word necessarily means staying 
for more than a long rest. 

7. mdvtes Si€yoyyutov. Note the characteristic rdvres, and 
comp. v. 30, xv. 2. It was not jealousy, but a sense of outraged 
propriety, which made them all murmur. 

Napa dpaptwhd. First, with emphasis. They allude, not to the 
personal character of Zacchzus, but to his calling. For apa 
unelided before a vowel see small print on xviii. 27, and Gregory, 
Prolegom. p. 95. 

katahicat. Only here and ix. 12 in N.T. has xaradvw the 
classical meaning of “loosing one’s garments and resting from a 
journey”: comp. Gen. xix. 2, xxiv. 23, 25; Ecclus. xiv. 25, 27, 
xxxvi. 31. Elsewhere in N.T. it means “throw down, destroy” 
(xxi. 6; Acts v. 38, vi. 14, etc.). 

8. orafets. Perhaps indicates a set attitude: see on xviii. 11. 
It is a solemn act done with formality. The narrative represents - 
this declaration as the immediate result of personal contact with 
the goodness of Christ. He is overwhelmed by Christ’s con- 
descension in coming to him, and is eager to make a worthy- 
acknowledgment. That he was stung by the reproach 7apa duap- 
tw\@G avépi, and wished to prove that he was not so great a sinner, 
is less probable. The d¢ does not show that Zacchzeus is answer- 
ing his accusers, but that Lk. contrasts his conduct with theirs. 


XIX. 8.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 435 


The solemn declaration is addressed mpés tv xUptov, not to them ; 
and the “I8od with which it begins indicates a sudden resolution, 
rather than one which had been slowly reached. 


7a jpica. ‘MSS. clearly certify to 7a qulova (L alone has julcea), 
apparently from a form juloos, against rad qusov and still more against 7a 
tion: this peculiar form occurs in an inscription from Selinus in Cilicia 
(C.Z.G. 4428)” WH. ii. App. p. 158. But editors are much divided. 
Lach. quicea, Treg. Tisch. and Weiss juloea, TR. and RV. julon, WH. 
tuto. May not julcea and jylora be mere mistakes for juloea, and juicy 
be a supposed improvement? The neut. plur. depends upon the neut. plur. 
of ry bxapxyévtwr. Comp. Tay vicwy tas juloeas (Hdt. ii. 10. 4); of qulcas 
tov dprwv (Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 4). For ta trdpxovta see on viii. 3. 


SiSwpe tots mrwxois. “I hereby give to the poor”: it is an act 
done there and then. The present tense might mean “I am in 
the habit of giving” (Godet) ; but this is not likely. For (1) this 
makes Zacchzus a boaster; (2) tév trapxdvtwy has to be inter- 
preted “income,” whereas its natural meaning is “that which one 
has possessed all along, capital”; (3) drodidwys must follow dup, 
and it is improbable that Zacchzus was in the habit of making 
fourfold restitution for zxadvertent acts of injustice ; and a man so 
scrupulous as to restore fourfold would not often commit acts of 
deliberate injustice. Standing in Christ’s presence, he solemnly 
makes over half his great wealth to the poor, and with the other 
half engages to make reparation to those whom he has defrauded. 
So Iren. Tertul. Ambr. Chrys. Euthym. Theoph. Maldon. etc. 
Aug. and Euthym. suggest that he kept one half, not to possess 
it, but to have the means of restitution. That he left all and 
became a follower of Christ (Ambr.) is not implied, but may 
eventually have taken place. 

€l Tivos Tt €ouxoddvtnca, The indic. shows that he is not in 
doubt about past malpractices: ‘if, as I know is the case, I have,” 
etc. Comp. Rom. v. 17; Col. ii. 20, iii. 1. For cuxogartety see 
on iii. 14, the only other place in N.T. in which the verb occurs: 
in LXX it is not rare. The constr. reds 7 is on the analogy of 
dzrootepety and similar verbs. 

GrodiS8wpr tetpamhody. This was almost the extreme penalty 
imposed by the Law, when a man was compelled to make repara- 
tion for a deliberate act of destructive robbery (Exod. xxii. 1; 
2 Sam. xii. 6). But sevenfold was sometimes exacted (Prov. vi. 31). 
If the stolen property had not been consumed, double was to be 
paid (Exod. xxii. 4, 7). When the defrauder confessed and made 
voluntary restitution, the whole amount stolen, with a fifth added, 
was sufficient (Lev. vi. 5; Num. v. 7). Samuel promises only 
simple restitution if anything is proved against him (1 Sam. xii. 3). 
Zacchzus is willing to treat his exactions as if they had been de- 
structive robberies. In thus stripping himself of the chief part 


436 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIx. 8, D. 


even of his honestly gained riches he illustrates xviii. 27. Zcce 
enim camelus, deposita gibbi sarcina, per foramen acus transit, hoc 
est dives et publicanus, relicto onere divitiarum, contempto sensu 
fraudium, angustam portam arctamque viam que ad vitam ducit 
ascenait (Bede). 

9. mpds aitéy. Although Christ uses the third person, this 
probably means “unto him” (Mey. Hahn) rather than “in refer- 
ence to him” (Grot. Nosg. Godet): see on xviii. 9. Ewald reads 
mpos avrdv, like zpos éautdv, xvili. 11, as if Jesus were thinking 
aloud. 


To avoid the difficulty some texts have the plur. pds adrovs (R), ad ellos 
(abc ff,ils), and some omit (de, Cypr.). Some MSS. of Vulg. have ad eos 
or a z/los for ad eum. 


St. Enpepov. The ore is merely recitative and is not to be 
translated. The oypepoy confirms the view that dows and azo- 
diSwyu refer to a present resolve and not to a past practice. 

cotnpia ... eyéveto. A favourite constr. with Lk. See on 
iv. 36. Only on this occasion did Jesus offer Himself as a guest, 
although He sometimes accepted invitations. Just as it was toa 
despised schismatic (Jn. iv. 26), and to a despised outcast from 
the synagogue (Jn. ix. 37), that He made a spontaneous revelation 
of His Messiahship, so it is a despised tax-collector that He selects 
for this spontaneous visit. In each case He knew that the re- 
cipient had a heart to welcome His gift: and it is in this welcome, 
and not in the mere visit, that the owrnp/a consisted.! 

That 16 otkw rtodtw is said rather than 7@ avdpi rovrw probably 
means that the blessing extends to the whole household; rather 
than that Jesus is alluding to the hospitality which He has received 
under this roof. In any case it is to be noted that it is the house 
which has suddenly lost half its wealth, and not the poor who have 
the promise of abundant alms, that Jesus declares to have received 
a blessing. To this occasion we may apply, and possibly to this 
occasion belongs, the one saying of Christ which is not recorded 
in the Gospels, and which we yet know to have been His, “It is 
more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts xx. 35). 

kaQot. kal adtds vids “ABpadp. This is conclusive as to Z. 
being a Jew. The words cannot be understood exclusively in a 
spiritual sense, as Cyprian seems to take them (Zf. Ixiii. 4, ed. 
Hartel). Chrysostom points out the moral sonship: Abraham 
offered his heir to the Lord, Zacchzeus his inheritance. Comp. 
xiii. 16, and see Weiss, Z. /. ii. p. 438, Eng. tr. iii. p. 221. For 
xaQdétt, which is peculiar to Lk., see small print on i. 7. The 
meaning is that he also, as much as any one else, is an Israelite. 


1In the Roman Church this verse is part of the gospel in the service for the 
dedication of churches. : 


XIX. 9,10.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 437 


“ His detested calling has not cancelled his birthright. My visit 
to him, and his receiving salvation, are entirely in harmony with 
the Divine Will” (ver. 5). 

10. #\Gev. First with emphasis: “ He came for this very pur 
pose.” The ydép explains cwrgpia éyévero: salvation to such as Z. 
is the object of His Epiphany. For the neut. of a collective whole, 
76 d@mokwhds, comp. Jn. vi. 37, xvil. 2, 24; and for the thought, 
Lk. xv. 6, 9, 32; Ezek. xxxiv. 16. The expression is no evidence 
that Zacchzus was a heathen. Comp. 1a droAwAdra oixov Iopayh 
(Mt. x. 6, xv. 24). - 

11-28. § The Parable of the Pounds. It is probable that this 
is distinct from the Parable of the Talents (Mt. xxv. 14-30 ; comp. 
Mk. xiii. 34-36). It is more likely that Jesus should utter some- 
what similar parables on different occasions than that Mt. or Lk. 
should have made very serious confusion as to the details of the 
parable as well as regards the time and place of its delivery. 


Here Jesus is approaching Jerusalem, but has not yet entered it in triumph: 
apparently he is still in Jericho. In Mt. He is on the Mount of Olives a day 
or two after the triumphal entry. Here He addresses a mixed company pub- 
licly. In Mt. He is speaking privately to His disciples (xxiv. 3). Besides the 
difference in detail where the two narratives are parallel, there is a great deal in 
Lk. which is not represented in Mt. at all. The principal items are: (1) the 
introduction, ver. 11; (2) the high birth of the chief agent and his going into a 
far country to receive for himself a kingdom, ver. 12; (3) his citizens hating him 
and sending an ambassage after him to repudiate him, ver. 14; (4) the signal 
vengeance taken upon these enemies, ver. 27; (5) the conclusion, ver. 28. 
Strauss supposes that Lk. has mixed up two parables, the Parable of the Pounds, 
which is only another version of the Parable of the Talents in Mt., and another 
which might be called the Parable of the Rebellious Citizens, consisting of 
vv. 12, 14, 15, 27. Without denying the possibility of this hypothesis, one may 
assert that it is unnecessary. As regards the Talents and the Pounds, Chrysos- 
tom pronounces them to be distinct, while Augustine implies that they are so, 
for he makes no attempt to harmonize them in his De Consensu Evangelistarum. 
Even in the parts that are common to the two parables the differences are very 
considerable. (1) In the Talents we have a householder leaving home for a 
time, in the Pounds a nobleman going in quest of a crown; (2) the Talents 
are unequally distributed, the Pounds equally; (3) the sums entrusted differ 
enormously in amount; (4) in the Talents the rewards are the same, in the 
Pounds they differ and are proportionate to what has been gained ; (5) in the 
Talents the unprofitable servant is severely punished, in the Pounds he is merely 
deprived of his pound. Out of about 302 words in Mt. and 286 in Lk., cnly 
about 66 words or parts of words are common to the two. An estimate of the 
probabilities on each side seems to be favourable to the view that we have 
accurate reports of two different parables, and not two reports of the same 
parable, one of which, if not both, must be very inaccurate. And, while both 

rables teach that we must make good use of the gifts entrusted to us, that in 
t. refers to those gifts which are unequally distributed, that in Lk. to those in 
which all share alike. See Wright, Syzopszs, § 138, p. 127. 


The lesson of the parable before us is twofold. To the disciples 
of all classes it teaches the necessity of patiently waiting and 
actively working for Christ until He comes again. To the /ews it 


o 


438 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX 10, 11. 


gives a solemn warning respecting the deadly opposition which 
they are now exhibiting, and which will be continued even after 
His departure. There will be heavy retribution for those who 
persistently reject their lawfully appointed King, This portion of 
the parable is of special interest, because there is little doubt that 
it was suggested by contemporary history. Herod the Great, ap- 
pointed procurator of Galilee by Julius Czesar B.c. 47 and tetrarch 
by Antony B.c. 41, went to Rome B.c. 40 to oppose the claims of 
Antigonus, and was made king of Judzea by the senate (Jos. Azz. 
XIV. 7. 3, 9. 2, 13. 1, 14.4; B. J. i. 14. 4). His son Archelaus 
in like manner went to Rome to obtain the kingdom which his 
father, by a change in his will, had left to him instead of to Antipas. 
The Jews revolted and sent an ambassage of fifty to oppose him 
at Rome. Augustus, after hearing them and the Jews on the spot, 
confirmed Herod’s will, but did not allow Archelaus the title of 
king until he had proved his worthiness. This he never did; but 
he got his “kingdom” with the title of ethnarch (Azz. xvii. 8. 1, 
9. 3, 11.4; B./. ii. 6. 1, 3). All this had taken place B.c. 4, in 
which year Antipas also went to Rome to urge his own claims 
against those of Archelaus. His more famous attempt to obtain 
the title of king did not take place until after this, and cannot be 
alluded to here. The remarkable feature of the opposing embassy 
makes the reference to Archelaus highly probable; and Jericho, 
which he had enriched with buildings, would suggest his case as 
an illustration. But the reference is by some held to be fictitious, 
by others is made a reason for suspecting that the author of this 
detail is not Christ but the Evangelist (Weiss). 

11. *Axoudvtav 8¢ aitav taita. These words connect the parable 
closely with what precedes. The scene is still Jericho, in or near 
the house of Zacchzeus ; and, as taita seems to refer to the saying 
about owrnpia (vv. 9, 10), attav probably refers to the disciples 
and those with Zaccheus. The belief that the Kingdom was close 
at hand, and that Jesus was now going in triumph to Jerusalem, 
was probably general among those who accompanied Him, and 
the words just uttered might seem to confirm it. “ But because 
they heard these things” (Mey.) is, however, not quite the mean- 
ing: rather, “Azd as they heard” (AV. RV.) ; Zee zllis audientibus 
(Vulg.). 

Here Cod. Bezae has one of its attempts to reproduce the gen. abs. in 
Latin: audzentium autem eorum ; comp. iii. 15, ix. 43, xxi. 5, 26, etc. 


mpoobels etrev mapaBodyv. Not, “ He spoke, and added a par- 
able” to what He spoke; but, “ He added and spoke a parable” 
in connexion with what had preceded. Joris est Domino, pre- 
missum sermonem parabolis adfirmare suljectis (Bede). It is a 
Hebraistic construction: comp. Gen. xxxvili. 5 ; Job xxix. 1; Gen. 


XIX. 11-18.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 439 


xxv. 1. In Lk. xx. 11, 12; Acts xii. 3; Gen. iv. 2, viii. 12 we 
have another form of the same idiom, zpocéOero wéuyat, etc. See 
also on vi. 39 for etwev tmapaBohip. 


The Latin equivalents are interesting: addidit dicens (a), adjectt et aixtt 
(e), addidit dicere (s), adjictens dixit (Vulg.). See also xx. II. 


81d. 78 €yyds etvar I. About six hours’ march ; 150 stades (Jos. 
B. J. iv. 8. 3), or about 18 miles. The goal was almost in sight ; 
the arrival could not be much longer delayed. 

Tapaxpyipa padre. . . dvadaivesdo. It is against this that 
the parable is specially “directed. The Messiah was there; ; 
Jerusalem was only a few hours distant; the inauguration of the 
Kingdom must be imminent: Tapaxpny.a is placed first with 
emphasis. The péAAc, “is sure to,” and dvadaivecbau, “come to 
view,” are both appropriate: they believed that they werecertain 
of a glorious pageant. Comp. Acts i. 6. 

12. edyevjs. In a literal sense here and 1 Cor. i. 26; comp. 
Jobi. 3: ina figurative sense Acts xvil. II; comp. 4 Mac. Vi. 5, 
1x. 23, 27. The paxpdv, which is probably an adj. as in xv. 13, 
has obvious reference to zapaypyjya: the distance would exclude 
an immediate return. Note the res. 

AaBeiv éaute Baowheiav. If we had not the illustrations from 
contemporary history, this would be a surprising feature in the 
parable. He is a vassal of high rank going to a distant suzerain 
to obtain royal authority over his fellow-vassals. For smootpépat 
see small print on i. 56; it tells us that the desired BacwAcia is at 
the starting point, not at a distance. 

18. He plans that, during his absence, servants of his private 
household shall be tested, with a view to their promotion when he 
is appointed to be king. 

Séxa Sovdous éautod. ‘Ten bond-servants of his own.” It 
does not follow, because we have not déxa ray 6. adrod, that he had 
only ten slaves. This would require rots 6. 6. and would be very 
improbable; for an Oriental noble would have scores of slaves. 
The point of éavrod (? “his Aousehold slaves”) is, that among them, 
if anywhere, he would be likely to find fidelity to his interests. 
As he merely wishes to test them, the sum committed to each is 
small,—about £4. In the Talents the householder divides the 
whole of his property (ra tzdpxovra atrod), and hence the sums 
entrusted to each slave are very large. 

Npaypatevcacbe, ‘Carry on business,” especially as a banker 
or a trader: here only in N.T., and in LXX only Dan. viii. 27 and 
some texts of 1 Kings ix. 19. Vulg. has negotiamini (not occupate), 
which Wic. renders “chaffare.” The “occupy” of Rhem. and 
AV. comes from Cov. and Cran., while Tyn. has “buy and sell.” 
We have a similar use of “ occupy” Ezek. xxvii. 9, 16, 19, 21, 22, 


440 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX. 18-17. 


where Vulg. has xegotiatio and negotiator: comp. “occupy their 
business in great waters” (Ps. cvii. 23). 


Latimer exhibits the same use of ‘‘ occupy”; and in a letter of Thomas 
Cromwell to Michael Throgmorton, A.D. 1537, he calls Pole ‘‘a merchant and 
occupier of all deceits” (Froude, As. of Eng. ch. xiv.). ‘Occupy till I 
come” is now misunderstood to mean ‘‘ keep possession till I come.” 

WH. are alone in reading mpayyaredcacGar here. All other editors make 
the verb 2nd pers. plur. imper. not infin. WH. regard the decision difficult 
both here and xiv. 17, but prefer the infin. here as ‘‘justified by St. Luke’s 
manner of passing from ovatzo obléqgua to oratio recta” (ii. p. 309). 

év 6 €pxopat. ‘‘ During the time in which I am coming,” z.e. the time 
until the return. For épyoua in the sense of ‘‘come back” comp. Jn. iv. 16 
and esp. xxi. 22, 23. The meaning ‘‘to be on the journey” (Oosterz. 
Godet) is impossible for épxec@ar. The reading éws (TR. with E etc.) is an 
obvious correction of év @ (NA BDKLR etc.). 


14. While the dodo represent the disciples, the zoAtra: repre- 
sent the Jews. The Jews hated Jesus without cause, éuionoav pe 
Swpedv (Jn. xv. 25; Ps. Ixviii. 5): but they had reason enough for 
hating Archelaus, who had massacred about 3000 of them at the 
first Passover after his accession (Azz. xvii. 9. 3; B./. ii. 1. 3). 

Od O€dopev todtov. They state no reasons: stat pro ratione 
voluntas. The rtovrov is contemptuous (¢stwm), or at least ex- 
presses alienation: ‘“‘he is no man of ours.”” So the Jews, of Christ. 

15. For Kai éyévero . . . kal eimev see note p. 45, and for ev ta 
émavehQetv see on iii. 21. The double compound occurs only here 
and x. 35 in N.T. Comp. éravdyev (v. 3, 4). Both verbs occur 
in LXX. 

tods Souhous TouTous ofs. This implies that he had other slaves 
to whom nothing had been entrusted. 


tva yvot. For this form comp. Mk. v. 43 and ix. 30. TR. with A etc. 
has yvq@ in all three places. The zis after yvot (A R, Syrr. Arm. Goth. Vulg.) 
is not genuine: om. § BD L, Boh. Aeth. de. 


ti Stempaypatevcavto. ‘What business they had done”: here 
only in bibl. Grk. In Dion. Hal. ili. 72, it means “attempt to 
execute.” He wants to know the vesw/¢ of their trafficking. But 
the word does not assume that they have “gained by trading” 
(AV. RV.); and hence xegotiatus esse¢ (Vulg.) is better than 
lucratus esset (f). 

16. 4 pva cou mpoonpydcato. “Thy pound worked out in 
addition, won”: modeste lucrum acceptum fert herili pecuniz, non 
industria suz (Grot.). Comp. ovk eya d& GAXa % xdpis Tod Bcov 
[4] oiv uot (1 Cor. xv. 10): see also 1 Cor. iv. 7. The verb 
occurs here only in bibl. Grk. Comp. Mt. xxv. 16. 


17. edye. In replies approving what has been said this is classical ; but 
the reading is doubtful: edye (BD, Latt., Orig. Ambr.), e#, possibly from 
Mt. xxv. 21 (NAR etc., Syrt.). 


XIX. 17-21.] JOURNEYINGS TOWAKDS JERUSALEM 441 


év €haxiotw motos éyévov. “Thou didst prove faithful in a very 
little”: comp. xvi. 10. The management of £4 was a small 
matter. 


torOt éEovctay €xwv. The periphrastic pres. imper. is not common in 
N.T. Comp. Gen. i. 6; Bu‘on, §97. Lk. is probably translating: Mt. is 
much more classical: éml mo\AGy oe KatTaoTyHow (xxv. 21). For étovclay 
&xew comp. Mt. vii. 29. 

18. With éroljcev mévre pvaGs comp. ei wh ef tis abrady dpyvpiov roret 
(Plat Rep. ix. 581 C): pecuntam facere is fairly common. 


19. éwdvw yivov. ‘Come to be over, be promoted over.” In 
both cases the efficient servants “receive as their reward,—not 
anything they can sit down to and enjoy,—but a wider sphere of 
activity” (Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 320). Urbs pro mina; 
mind ne tugurium quidem emeretur. Magna rerum amplitudo ac 
varietas in regno Dei, gquamvis nondum cognita nobis (Beng.). 

20. kalo étepos. The omission of the article in A and inferior 
MSS. is a manifest correction to avoid a difficulty. As there were 
ten servants, the third cannot rightly be spoken of as 6 €repos. 
Weiss takes this as evidence that in the original parable there 
were only three servants, as in the Talents; and therefore as 
evidence that the two narratives represent the same original. But 
it would have been tedious to have gone through all the ten, which 
is around number, as in the Ten Virgins. The three mentioned 
are samples of the whole ten. Some gained immensely, some con- 
siderably, and some not at all. The two first classes having been 
described, the representative of the remaining class may be spoken 
of as 6 érepos, especially as he is of quite a different kind. They 
both belong to the profitable division, he to the unprofitable. 

fv etxov droxeupevyy. ‘Which I was keeping stored up.” He 
is not owning a fault, but professing a virtue: “I have not lost or 
spent any of it.” In Col. i. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Heb. ix. 27 the verb 
is used of what is “stored up” and awaits us in the future: here 
only in a literal sense. 


govdapia, A Latinism: sadarvum (Acts xix. 12; Jn. xi. 44, xx. 7). 
Comp. daodprov (xii. 6), Neyewv (viii. 30), Syvdpiov (x. 35), Kevtuplwy (Mk. 
XV. 39), KodpavTys (Mt. v. 26), etc. 


21. adotmpss. Here only in N.T. Comp. 2 Mac. xiv. 30, and 
see Trench, Syz. xiv. The word originally means “rough to the 
taste, stringent.” It is in this servant’s plea and in the reply to it 
that the resemblance between the two parables of the Pounds and 
of the Talents is closest. 

Gipers 6 ok €OyKkas. Perhaps a current proverbial expression 
for a grasping person. We need not decide whether he means, 
“If I had gained anything, you would have taken it,” or, “If I 
had lost it, you would have held me responsible.” The general 


442 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX 21-25. 


sense is, “You are a strict man; and I have taken care that you 
should get back the exact deposit, neither more nor less.” 

22. kpivw oe. “Do I judge thee”; “ judico (f Vulg.), con- 
demno (e). Most editors prefer xpwa, “will I judge” (AV. RV.); 
judicabo (ad). But Tyn. has “judge I thee” and Luth. richte ich 
dich. Hist. pres. (Aéyet, xiii. 8, xvi. 7, 29) is very rare in Lk. 


The Latin Versions vary greatly in rendering rovnpé: znzgue (d), znjfideles 
(eff,ir), crudelis (b), nequa et pager (f), infidels et piger (q), enfideles et male 
(a), zeguam (Vulg.). Comp. Mt. xviii. 32. The szger comes from Mt. 
xxv. 26, rovnpé dovAe Kal dxvnpé. 


23. émi tpdmeLav. ‘On a banker’s table.” Here the inter- 
rogation ends, and «day begins a declaratory sentence. It would 
have been very little trouble to put it in a bank. There the 
money would have been as safe as in the napkin, and would have 
borne interest. 


The often quoted saying, ‘‘Show yourselves tried bankers,” TiveoOe 
Tpamefirat ddxtuor, may easily be a genuine utterance of Christ. But if it isa 
mere adaptation, it comes from Mt. xxv. 27 rather than from Lk. See Resch, 
Agrapha, pp. 118, 234; Wsctt. Zz. to Gosp. App. C. i 


toka. In N.T. the word occurs only in these parables ; but is 
freq. in LXX ; Deut. xxiii. 19; Lev. xxv. 36, 37; Exod. xxii. 25, 
etc. The notion that money, being a dead thing, ought not to 
breed (rexeiv, téKos), augmented the prejudice of the ancients 
against interest. Aristotle condemns it as mapa ¢ivow (Pol. 
i. I0. 4; comp. £7¢A. JVic. iv. 1. 40). Cicero represents Cato as 
putting it on a level with murder (De Of. ii. 25. 89). “The 
breed of barren metal” (Shaks.). 


av aitd émpaga, The protasis is readily understood from the previous 
question: comp. Heb. x. 2. For this use of rpdocew see on iii. 13. 


24, tois mapeotacow. His attendants, or body-guard, or 
courtiers: comp. 1 Kings x. 8; Esth. iv. 5. The man who had 
proved most efficient in service is rewarded with an additional 
sum with which to traffick for his sovereign. 

25. The subject of <izav and the meaning of airé are un- 
certain. The common interpretation is that ‘he attendants who 
have received this order here express their surprise to ‘he master 
who gave it; ze. the remonstrance is part of the parable. But it 
is possible that Lk. is here recording an interruption on the part of 
the audience, and thus lets us see with what keen interest they 
have listened to the narrative. It is the audience who remonstrate 
with Christ for giving the story sucha turn. They think that He 
is spoiling the parable in assigning the unused pound to the 
servant who has most and therefore seems to need it least (see on 
xx. 15). But in any case the remonstrance serves to give point to 


XIX. 25-27.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 443 


the declaration which follows. Comp. Peter’s interruption and 
Christ’s apparent ignoring of it xil. 41, 42 ; and again xviii. 28, 29. 
In all the cases there is an indirect answer. A general principle is 
stated which covers the point in question. 


Bleek rejects ver. 25 as an interpolation: om. D 69, bde ff, q, Syr-Cur. 
Syr-Sin. The difficulty might cause the omission. The insertion of ydp 
after devo i in ver. 26 (ADR, Syrt. Goth.) is due to a similar cause. Both 
omission and insertion may be influenced by Mt. xxv. 28, 29. 


26. \éyw Spiv. Whose words are these? The answer will 
partly depend upon the view taken of ver. 25. If the interruption 
is made by the king’s attendants, then ver. 26, like ver. 24 and 
ver. 27, gives the words of the king. But if the interruption 
comes from Christ’s audience, then ver. 26 may be His reply to 
the audience ; after which He finishes the parable with the king’s 
words in ver. 27. The Ad€yw ipiy does not prove that Christ 
is giving these words as His own: comp. xiv. 24. But in any 
case, either in His own person or in that of the king in the 
parable, Jesus is stating a principle which answers the objection 
in ver. 25. In Mt. xxv. 29 this principle is uttered by the house- 
holder in the parable without A€yw iptv. 

dm 8€ tod ph exovros. With this apparent paradox comp. 
vill. 18, when an unused gift is spoken of, not as 6 éye, but as 6 
Soxet éyetv. He alone possesses, who uses and enjoys his pos- 
sessions. 

27. mAhv Tods €xOpovs pou tovTous. The rovrous represents the 
enemies as present to the thoughts of the audience: comp. rovrous 
in ver. 15. It is possible to take the pronoun with what follows, 
as in Syr-Sin.: “Bring hither mine enemies, those who would 
not,” etc. And this makes one more witness for the reading 
éxeivovs (AD R etc., Latt. Syrr. Goth.), which almost all editors 
reject as a correction of rovrous (SB K LMU, Aegyptt.). For 
amAny comp. xviii. 8. 

katacpdtate adtotds Eumpoobdv pov. Comp. éodatey LapoviAr 
tov “Ayay éveitiov Kupiov (1 Sam. xv. 33). The punishment of 
rebellious subjects and active opponents is far more severe than 
that of neglectful servants. The compound xarac¢afw occurs 
nowhere else in N.T., but is not rare in LXX. It means “hew 
them down, slay them utterly.” The destruction of Jerusalem 
and the doom of all who deliberately rebel against Christ are here 
foreshadowed. Augustine more than once points to this sentence 
in answer to the objection that the severe God of the O.T. cannot 
be identical with the God of Love in the N.T. In the Gospels, as 
in the Law, the severity of God’s judgments against wilful dis- 
obedience is plainly taught. Comp. Con. Faust. xxii. 14. 19. 

The nobleman, who goes on a long journey and returns a 


444. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX. 27, 28. 


king, is Christ. He leaves behind Him servants of various 
degrees of merit, and enemies. When the King returns, each of 
these is rewarded or punished according to his deserts; and the 
rewards are larger opportunities of service. There is no special 
meaning in ten, which is a round number; nor in three, which 
gives a sufficiently representative classification. And it may be 
doubted whether there is any special meaning in the ¢vansfer of 
the pound from the unprofitable to the most profitable servant. 
The point is that zo neglect opportunities ts to lose them; and that 
to make the most of opportunities ts to gain others. The main 
lesson of the parable is the long period of Christ's absence, during 
which there will be abundant time for both service and rebellion. 
There is not to be, as the disciples fancied, zmmediate triumph and 
joy for a//; but, first a long time of probation, and then triumph 
and joy for those only who have earned them, and in exact pro- 
portion to their merits. 

28. Historical conclusion, corresponding to the historical intro- 
duction in ver. 11. 

€mopeveto eumpoodev. “He went on before.” Although the 
aitév is not expressed, this probably means “in front of the 
disciples”: comp. Mk. x. 32. But eurpoofev may = eis 76 Eumpoo- 
Oev (ver. 4), aS é7icw=eis Ta driow (Mt. xxiv. 18): in which case 
the meaning would be, “ He went forwards” from Jericho towards 
Jerusalem. With dvaBatvwv comp. xaréBawver (x. 30) of the oppo- 
site route. 


D omits éurpooGev anda dhave simply zbat; c ff,ilqrs abzz, while Vulg. 
has grecedebat. D inserts 6é after dvaBalywy. Syr-Sin. reads, ‘‘ And when 
He had said these things, ¢hey went out from there. And as He was going 
up to Jerusalem, and had reached Bethphage,” etc. 


XIX. 29-XXI. 38. THE LAST DAYS OF PUBLIO 
TEACHING. 


29-40. The Triumphal Procession to Jerusalem. Mt. xxi. 
1-11; Mk. xi. 1-11. Comp. Jn. xii. 1-19. ‘The Journeyings 
towards Jerusalem” are over, and Lk. now permanently rejoins 
the other Gospels in describing the concluding scenes. As com- 
pared with them, he has both additions and omissions. He 
omits the supper at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, 
which Mt. and Mk. place without date after the triumphal entry, 
but which Jn. states to have taken place before the entry. Lk. 
has already given a similar incident, a meal at which Jesus is 
a guest and a woman anoints Him (vii. 36-50), and perhaps for 


xIx. 29.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 445 


that reason omits the supper at Bethany. The chronology may 
be tentatively arranged thus. Jn. tells us that Jesus arrived at 
Bethany six days before the Passover, viz. Nisan 8, a day on which 
pilgrims often arrived at Jerusalem, as Josephus states. Assuming 
that the year is A.D. 30, Nisan 8 would be Friday, March 31. 
Jesus and His disciples reached Bethany that afternoon, either 
before the sabbath began, or after having done no more than “a 
sabbath day’s journey” after it began. But the chronology of 
these last days, as of the whole of our Lord’s life, is uncertain. 
At Bethany He would part from the large caravan of pilgrims in 
whose company He had been travelling. Most of these would 
press on to Jerusalem. See Wieseler, Chron. Syn. v. 2, Eng. 
tr. p. 358, and comp. Caspari, Chron. Einl. § 165, Eng. tr. 
p- 217. 


29. Bn%payyn. Accent, derivation, and site are all doubtful. 
But ByObdayy is preferable to Byfdayq ; the meaning is probably 
“ House of unripe figs,” and the situation must have been near 
Bethany. See Robinson, Mes. in Pad. i. 433 ; Stanley, Sin. & Pai. 
p. 422; D.B.* s.v. Caspari, following Lightfoot, contends that 
Bethphage was not a village, but a whole district, including 
Bethany and all that lay between it and Jerusalem. The meaning 
in this case would be, that Jesus drew near to the district Beth- 
phage and to the particular spot in it called Bethany (Chron. Zin. 
§ 144, 145, Eng. tr. pp. 189-191). The passage is worthy of 
study. In N.T. Bethphage is mentioned in these three narratives 
only ; in O.T. not at all. The Talmud says that it was east of 
the walls of Jerusalem. Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome knew it, 
but do not describe its position. Its being placed first points 
to its being more important than Bethany. 

The derivation of Bethany is still more uncertain, but its site is 
well ascertained. The conjecture “ House of dates” is confirmed 
by the adjacent “ House of figs” and “Mount of olives.” The 
names point to the ancient fertility of the neighbourhood. 


7 kadovpevov “EXat@v, Here also there is doubt about the accent, 
which in this case, as in xplyw (ver. 22), affects the meaning. In Mt. and 
Mk. the article, rév "EXa:&y, shows that the word is gen. plur.; but here, 
with Lach. Tisch. Treg. and others, we may write "EAa:év, as nom. sing. 
In that case the name is treated as a sound and not declined. In xxi. 37 
the same doubt arises. Acts i. 12 we have ’EXa:@vos, as in Ant. vii. 9. 2, 
from "Eady, Olivetum, ‘an olive-grove, Olivet.” But ver. 37 and the 
parallels in Mt. and Mk. render Edaréy the more probable here (WH. ii. 
App. p. 158: so also Hahn, Wittichen, and Wetzel). The fact that "EXads 
commonly has the article is not decisive (Field, Oszum Norvie. iii. p. 53). 


446 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XIX. 29-33. 


Jos. B. /. ti. 13. 5, v. 2. 3, vi. 2. 8 are all doubtful; but both Bekker and 
Dindorf edit "ENavéy in all three places. Deissmann, Wewe Bibelstud. p. 36. 


In ver. 29 note the characteristic éyévero and kaAovpevorv: 
In the latter we have an indication that Lk. is writing for those not 
familiar with Palestine: comp. xxi. 37, xxil. 1. Neither occurs in 
the parallels in Mt.and Mk. Note also és=“when” and yyyccev. 

30. ‘Yrdyete. So also Mk., while Mt. has his favourite 
mopeveoGe. The details which ‘Mk. alone records render the 
conjecture that Peter was one of the two who were sent reasonable. 

Ty Katévavtt kounv. Whether Bethany, or Bethphage, or an 
unnamed village, is quite uncertain. This compound preposition 
is not found in profane writers, but is common in bibl. Grk. (Mt. 
xxl. 2; Mk. xi. 2; Rom. iv. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 195 Exod oxime 
xxxli. 5, etc.). L. & S. Lex. quote C. Z 2905 D. 13. 

ep Sv oddels matoTe avOpdmwv exdOicey. This intimates to the 
disciples that it is no ordinary journey which He contemplates, 
but a royal progress: comp. Deut. xxi. 3; Num. xix. 2; 1 Sam. 
vi. 7. The birth of a virgin and the burial in a new tomb are 
facts of the same kind. 

81. odtws épeite 671. Vulg. and AV. make om the answer to 
Ava ti; So also Mey. and Hahn. But in Mt. xxi. 3 we have ore 
and no && ri; In both places the 67 is recitative. Comp. 
Vii. 16, Xxil, 70. 

“O kUptos. This rather implies that the owner has some know- 
ledge of Jesus. Lk. omits the assurance that the owner will send 
the colt. That the whole had been previously arranged by Jesus 
is possible, for He gives no intimation that it was not so. But the 
impression produced by the narratives is that the knowledge is 
supernatural, which on so momentous an occasion would be in 
harmony with His purpose. Comp. Jn. xiv. 29, xvi. 32, xxi. 18, 
and see on Lk. xxii. 10, 13, 34. As Godet points out, this pro- 
phetic knowledge must not be confounded with omniscience. 

82. kabos eimev. “ Hxactly as He said.” This xafeés, in 
slightly different connexions, is in all three narratives. Mt. has 
“they did even as He appointed”; Mk., “they sazd to them even 
He said”; Lk., “they found even as He said.” They could not 
have done and said just what He had commanded, unless the facts 
had been such as He had foretold. Lk. and Mk., as writing for 
Gentiles, take no notice of the prophecy in Zech. ix. 9, which 
both Mt. and Jn. quote. 


Justin, in order to make the incident a fulfilment of Gen. xlix. I1, 
‘* Binding his foal unto the vine,” etc., says that the m&\os was mpds duwehop 
dedeuévos (AZol. i. 32). 


83. of KUpiot adtod. The owner of the colt and those with 
him: tues t&v éxet EoryKdtwv (Mk.). In all three narratives Jesus 


XIX. 84-87.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 447 


uses the singular. A fiction would have made exact correspondence 
by representing the remonstrance as coming from one person only. 
Mt. omits the fulfilment of the predicted remonstrance. 

35. adtav 7a indria. The pronoun stands first with emphasis: 
they did not spare their own chief garments. Comp. éavrév in 
ver. 36. 


In both verses readings vary: here TR. with A R etc. has éavrdv, while 
NBDL, Orig. have airév: there TR. with SD has atréy, while ABK 
have Cae The best editors are unanimous for av’rGv here, 


émeBiBacaoy. Lk. alone tells us of their placing Him on the 
colt. The other three merely state that He sat on it.) Nowhere 
in O.T. do we find kings thus mountéd. While there is much in 
this triumphal procession that tells of royalty, there is also some- 
thing which adds, ‘“‘ My Kingdom is not of this world” (Godet). 
Against carnal chiliastic notions of the Kingdom this entry on 
“a colt the foal of an ass” is an évonia realis ordained by the 
Lord Himself (Nosgen, Gesch. J. Chr. p. 506). For érBiBalw 
comp. x. 34; Acts xxiii. 24: it is not rare in LXX. 

86. imeotpdvvvov Ta ipdtia. Change of subject: it is the 
multitude that does this. Robinson tells how the people of 
Bethlehem spread their garments before the horses of the English 
consul and his suite (es. im Pal. i. p. 473): other instances in 
Wetst. on Mt. xxi. 8. Lk. omits the branches strewn in the way. 
All three omit the multitude with palm branches coming from 
Jerusalem to meet the procession (Jn. xii. 13, 18). 

87. Here every word differs from the wording of the others, 
although the substance is the same. As marks of style note dar, 
tAnOos, pwvy peyaAn, tacdv Sv. The 757 is amphibolous, and 
may be taken either with éyyi£ovros (AV.) or with zpos 779} xataBdoe 
(RV.): see on xvii. 22 and xviil. 31. In either case zpds tH 
kataBdaoe is epexegetic of éyyifovros, “When He was drawing 
nigh, viz. at the descent,” etc. It is at the top of this descent 
that the S.E. corner of the “City of David” (but not the temple) 
comes in sight; and the view thus opening may have prompted 
(ngavro) this “earliest hymn of Christian devotion” (Stanley). 
Many of the pilgrims were from Galilee, where Jesus still had 
enthusiastic friends. 


The reading mpés Thy xardBactv (D) is an obvious correction. DMT 
with ade Syrr. Aeth. omit #57. In both readings D is supported by Syr- 
Sin., ‘‘ When ¢ey came near to the descent,” etc. With this plur. comp 
that of Syr-Sin. in ver. 28. 





1Mk. says én’ atrév (rdv dor), Jn. ex’ aird (dvdpiov), Mt. alone men- 
tions both the colt and its mother and continues the plural throughout; ézé- 
Onxav én’ abtav Ta imdtia, Kal érexdbicev érdvw atray: over which Strauss is 
sarcastically critical. Y 


448 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX. 87, 38. 


The Latin Versions are interesting in what follows. Nearly all MSS. 
of Vulg. have omnes turbex descendentzum, which is a mere slip for déscentium 
(T@y wabnrGy), a reading preserved in G M of Vulg. as in Codd. Am. and 
Brix. Ddéscentes was substituted for désczpul¢ possibly to show that a larger 
body than the Twelve was meant. Cod. Bezae has dscentes Jn. vi. 66, 
xxi. 2, while almost all have it Jn. xxi. 12, and c has it Lk. xxii. 45. Comp. 
Tert. Prescr. ili. 


Suvdwewyr. The healing of Bartimzeus and the raising of 
Lazarus would be specially mentioned. 


For duvayzéwv D has yewoudvar, gue fiebant (d), factzs (x); om. Syr-Cur. 
Syr-Sin. 


38. Edhoynpévos 6 epxsuevos . . . ev dvdpart Kuptov. In these 
words all four agree. Lk. and Jn. add 6 BactXcvs, which in Mk. 
is represented by 7 épyouevyn Bacrdcia and in Mt. ‘Qeava re vid 
Aaveid. Lk. substitutes dda (more intelligible to Gentiles) for 
the Hosanna of the other three. See on ii. 14. “He that 
cometh in the name of the Lord” means God’s representative, 
envoy, or agent. The words év otpav@ eipnyn are in Lk. alone, 
and are perhaps part of his paraphrase of Hosanna. Heaven is 
the abode of God, and there is peace there because man is recon- 
ciled to God, or perhaps because peace is now prepared for man 
in the heavenly Kingdom. 


These cries (comp. iv. 34) clearly recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The 
Psalms from which they come were sung at the Passover and at the F. of 
Tabernacles, and hence were familiar to the people. Ps. cxvii. is said by 
some to have been written for the F. of Tabernacles after the Return, by 
others for the dedication of the second temple. The supposition that the 
Evangelists have confounded the Passover with the F. of Tabernacles, and 
have transferred to the former what was customary at the latter, is gratuitous. 
These responses from the Hallel were sung, not only at the Passover, but at 
other Feasts ; and the waving of palm branches was not confined to the F, of 
Tabernacles (1 Mac. xiii. 51). See Edersh. Z, & 7. ii. p. 371. 

Hase calls attention to the audacity of the whole transaction. Jesus and 
His disciples were under the ban of the hierarchy. The Sanhedrin had issued 
a decree that, if any one knew where He was, he should give information, that 
they might arrest Him (Jn. xi. 57). And yet here are His disciples bringing 
Him in triumph into Jerusalem, and the populace enthusiastically joining with 
them. Moreover, all this had been arranged by Jesus Himself, when He sent 
for the colt. What He had hitherto concealed, or obscurely indicated, or 
revealed only to a chosen few, He now, seeing that the fulness of time is come, 
makes known to the whole world. He publicly claims to be the Messiah. 
This triumphal procession is the Holy One of God making solemn entry into 
the Holy City. ase is justly severe on Strauss for the way in which he 
changed his view from edition to edition: the truth being that the triumphal 
entry is an historical fact, too well attested to be discredited (Gesch. /esz, 
§ 94). 


39, 40. Here Lk. is alone, not only in wording, bui in sup- 
stance. The remonstrance of these Pharisees is intrinsically 
probable. Having no power to check the multitude (Jn. xi. 19), 


xr. 39-41] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 449 


and perhaps not daring to attempt it, they call on Jesus to do so. 
Possibly they wished to fasten the responsibility upon Him, and 
they may have been sent by the Sanhedrin to spy and report. 
This Messianic homage was offensive to them, and they feared a 
tumult which might cause trouble with Pilate, 

89. dd tod dydhov. It matters very little whether we take 
these words with twes tav (AV. RV.) or with eiwav (Weiss, 
Hahn). Perhaps At8dcxahe implies that He is no more than a 
teacher: it is the way in which His critics and enemies commonly 
address Him (vii. 40, xx. 21, 28; Mt. xii. 38, etc.). But comp. 
xxi. 7; Mk. iv. 38. 

Syr-Sin, has, ‘Some of the feos from amongst the crowd said unto 
Him, Good Teacher, rebuke Thy disciples, shat they shout not.” 


40. Christ’s reply is of great sternness. It implies that their 
failure to appreciate the significance of the occasion is amazing in 
its fatuity. It is not likely that there is any reference to the crasl.- 
ing of the stones at the downfall of Jerusalem (Lange, Oosterzee). 
Perhaps ot Ai@ot xpdgovcw was already a proverbial expression. 
Comp. Aifos é« totxov Bojocrat (Hab. ii. 11): Farietes, medius 
fidius, ut mihi videntur, tibi gratias agere gestiunt (Cic. Marcel. iii.) , 
and see other illustrations in Wetst. Nothing is gained by making 
ot AiGo figurative: “men of stony hearts”; such an event “ might 
rouse even the dullest to rejoice” (Neander). Comp. iii. 8. 


dav . . . Giwmycovcw. This is the abundantly attested reading 
(SABLRA). With the exceptional constr. comp. éa7 wh tis ddayijce 
(Acts vill. 31); éay duets orjxere (1 Thes. iii. 8); day ofdauer (I Jn. v. 15); 
éay mpoogéper? (Lev. i. 14). In Jn. viii. 36 and Rom. xiv. 8 the indic. 1s 
probably a false reading. Win. xli. 2 (b), p. 369; Lft. Zg. p. 46; Simcox 
Lang. of N.T. p. 110, 

There is no authority for inserting mox (Beza), ‘‘ shortely ” (Genev.), or 
“‘ immediately ” (AV.) with “‘ cry out.” 

The reading xexpdtovrat (AR.) is a substitution of the form which is 
most common in LXX (Ps. Ixiv. 14; Job xxxv. 9; Jer. xi. II, 12, xlvii. 2 
etc.). See Veitch, s.v. ‘*The simple fut. perf. does not occur in N.T.” 
Burton, § 93. 


41-44. §The Predictive Lamentation of Jesus over Jerusalem. 
The spot where these words must have been uttered can be 
ascertained with certainty, although tradition, as in other cases 
(see on iv. 29), has fixed on an impossible site. See the famous 
description by Stanley, Siz. & Fal. pp. 190-193, together with 
that of Tristram (Zand of Israel, p. 174), part of which is quoted 
in the Eng. tr. of Caspari’s Chron. Zini. p. 188. See also 
Tristram, Bib Places, p. 125. This lamentation must not be 
confounded with the one recorded xiii. 34, 35; Mt. xxiii. 37. 

41. éhauvcev. Stronger than éédxpucey (Jn. xi. 35): it implies 
wailing and sobbing. It is used of the widow at Nain (vii. 13), 

29 


a 


450 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XIX. 41, 42, 


the penitent in the Pharisee’s house (vii. 38), and the mourners 
in the house of Jairus (viii. 52). It was the sight of the city and 
the thought of what might have been, which called forth the 
lamentation. The attitude of the Pharisees had just shown Him 
what the real condition of the city was. Christianity is sometimes 
accused of being opposed to the spirit of patriotism: but there is 
deep patriotism in this lamentation. 


With éx’ airfy comp. xxiii. 28; Rev. i. 7, xviii. 9, In class. Grk. we 
have éx’ airy, but more often adrjv without a prep. Here TR. with E 
etc. has éx’ atr7. 


42. Ei éyvws év tH Hpépa tadty Kat od td mpds etpyyny—This 
is probably correct; but the text is somewhat uncertain. The 
aposiopesis is impressive. In the expression of strong emotion 
sentences are often broken: xxii. 42; Jn. vi. 62, xii. 27; Exod. 
xxxli. 32. Win. lxiv. 2, p. 749. The words imply that there have 
been various opportunities, of which this is the last. Thus once 
more (7ood«ts, xii. 34) the synoptic narrative is found to imply 
the Judean ministry recorded by Jn. The kat od perhaps implies 
no comparison: “even thou” (AV. RV.). But if “thou also” 
(Rhem.) be preferred, it probably means, “as well as My disciples.” 
For the wish comp. Deut. xxxii. 29. The protasis, “If thou hadst 
known,” does not imply any such definite apodosis as, “ Thou 
wouldest weep as I do, for thy past blindness”; or, “Thou 
wouldest not perish”; or, ‘‘ Thou wouldest hear Me and believe” ; 
or, “I would rejoice like My disciples”; all of which have been 
suggested (Corn. 4 Lap. ad /oc.). The expression is virtually a 
wish, “O that thou hadst known.” Comp. ei etyov paxatpay ev 
Th xeypt pov (Num. xxii. 29); ef KaTeueivapey Kal KatwxioOnpev 
mapa Tov “lopdavyv (Jos. vii. 7); €f Kovoas Tov éevroddy pov (Is. 
xlviii. 18). In all these places Vulg. has wt/mam, and RV. either 
“would that” or “O that.” For ta mpés eipyyny see on xiv. 32. 
There is possibly an allusion to the name Jerusalem, which perhaps 
means “ inheritance of peace.” 


The kal ye before év 79 juépg (TR. with AR) can hardly be genuine; 
om. NSBDL, Boh. Aeth. Goth. Iren-lat. Orig. The cov after nuépa is 
still more certainly an insertion; om. SX ABDL, Boh. Aeth. Arm. Iren-lat. 
Orig. Eus. Bas. The cov after elpijvnv has the support of Versions, but is 
just the kind of addition which is common in Versions; om. & B L, Iren-lat. 
Orig. Epiph. Godet naively remarks, Les deux mots xalye et cov ont une 
grande valeur; which explains the insertion. Elsewhere in N.T. «cai ye 
occurs only Acts ii. 18 in a quotation, 


viv 3€ “But now, as things are.” The actual fact is the 
reverse of the possibility just intimated. Comp. Jn. viii. 40, 
ix. 41 ;.1 Cor. vil. 14, xii. 20. 

éxpJByn. ‘‘ Hidden once for all, by Divine decree”: comp. 


xIx. 42, 43.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 451 


Jn. xii. 38-40. The nom. to éxp¥8y is not “the fact that (67) 
days will come,” etc. (Theoph.), but 74 zpos cipyvyv. For the 
form éxpv¥y see Veitch, s.v. 

43. Sr jgovow jpepar. “ Because days will come”; not “ she 
days” (AV. RV.): see on v. 35 and xvil. 22. Dyes multi, quia 
unum diem non observas (Beng.). The 67t probably depends 
upon «i éyvws: “ Would that thou hadst known in time; because 
the consequences (now inevitable) of not knowing are terrible.” 
Our 67« may introduce the explanation of viv d& éxp¥By: “ They 
are hid from thine eyes, because the very reverse of peace will 
certainly come upon thee.” But in any case dr is “ because, 
for,” not “ that.” 


It is not easy to decide between wapeuSarotcw (% C* L), which Tisch. 
and WH. prefer, and mep:Sadotow (TR. with A Betc.). D has xat Sadroiow 
éml cé. In LXX zapepSdddew is freq. for ‘to encamp”: Num. i. 50, ii. 
17, 27, iii. 38, xxxiii. 10, II, 12, 13, etc. Here it would mean “‘ cast up in 
front” or ‘‘ plant in beside,” rather than ‘‘surround.” In Vulg., through 
carelessness on Jerome’s part, cércumdabunt is used to translate both wep- 
Badodcww and mepixuxAdcovowy, although earlier Lat. texts distinguish. Simi- 
larly we have pressura for both dvdyxy (xxi. 23) and cuvoxy (xxi. 25). For 
a converse inaccuracy see on xxiv. 14. 


xdépaxe, From meaning a single stake (va//us), ydpaé comes 
to mean, not only a “ palisade” (va//um) but a “rampart” or 
“palisaded mound” (va//um and agger combined). This is its 
meaning here: comp. Is. xxxvii. 33; Ezek. iv. 2, xxvi. 8; Jos. 
Vita, xliii. In Ezek. iv. 2 we have zepiBareis ex airy xdpaxa, 
“Pale” (Wic.), “rampars” (Gen.), and “bank” (Tyn. Cov. RV.) 
are all preferable to “trench” (Rhem. AV.). It is said that these 
details show that the prophecy has been re-worded to fit the 
event more precisely and that therefore this Gospel was written 
after A.D. 70. The argument is precarious, although the con- 
clusion is probable. At any rate it is worthy of note that neither 
here nor elsewhere does Lk. call attention to the fulfilment of the 
prophecy, as he does in the case of Agabus (Acts xi. 28). To 
those who assume that Jesus was unable to foresee the siege of 
Jerusalem, the amount of detail in the prediction is not of much 
moment. But it is not logical to maintain that Jesus could fore- 
see the siege, but could not have foreseen these details; or to 
maintain that He would make known the coming siege, but would 
not make known the details. What is there in these details which 
is not common to all sieges? Given the siege, any one might add 
them. J/ n'est pas nicessaire pour cela detre prophite (Godet). 
Moreover it is possible that Jesus is freely reproducing Is. xxix. 3: 
kal xukAdow ézi o€, cai Badd emi ct xdpaxa, Kai Oyjow zepi ce 
mépyous. In both cases note the solemn effect of the simple co- 
ordination of sentences with xa‘: here we have xai five times, 


452 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX. 43, 44 


Note also the impressive repetition of the pronoun: we have gov, 
got, or oe ten times in two verses. For the fulfilment of this 
prophecy see Jos. 2. 7. v. 6. 2,12. 2. The Jews burnt the palisade, 
and then Titus replaced it with a wall. 

ouvéfouctv oe mavtodev. One of Lk.’s favourite verbs: iv. 38, 
Vili. 37, 45, Xii. 50, xxii. 63; Acts vii. 57, xviii. 5, xxviii. 8. It is 
possibly medical (Hobart, p. 3). The adv. occurs elsewhere in 
N.T. in Mk. i. 45 and Heb. ix. 4 only: it is rare in LXX. This 
“keeping in on every side” was so severe that thousands died of 
famine (Jos. B. /. v. 12. 3, Vi. I. 1). 

44, Baioiciv ce kai ta Tékva cou év aot. Not a case of 
zeugma, for édadifew may mean “dash to the ground” (RV.) 
quite as well as “/ay even with the ground” (A.V.), and the 
former will apply to both buildings and human beings. Comp. 
eOapiet Ta vyTid cov mpos THY mérpav (Ps. CXxxVil. 9); Kal Ta 
brorithia aitav eadicOyoovra: (Hos. xiv. 1). In Amos ix. 14 
noagiopevas is a false reading tor 7Pavicpevas, and therefore the 
passage gives no support to the rendering, “raze, level to the 
ground.” Field, Ottum JVorvic. iii. p. 53. Add in confirmation, 
Ta VATA aiths édad.odvow (Nah. iii. 10). The AV. translation, “lay 
thee even with the ground,” makes this tautological with “not 
leave in thee one stone upon another.” The tékva are all the 
inhabitants, not the young only. 


The Latin Versions are interesting: ad terram prosternent (f Vulg.); ad 
terram consternent (some MSS. of Vulg.); ad ¢erram sternent (E); ad solum 
deponent (e); ad nihtlum deducent (a); pavimentabunt (a). In class. Lat. 
pavimentare means ‘“‘to cover with a paviment ” (Cic. (OC) foe ieee 
Comp. the double meaning of ‘‘ to floor.’ 


ouK apycoucw Aidoy emt AiGov. Comp. drus py xatalepOy 
éxet p2nde AiMos (2 Sam. xvii. 13); Kataomdcw «cis xaos Tovs Aifous 
aitjs (Mic. i. 6). For av@ dv see on i. 20 and xii. 3. 

obk €yvws Tov Katpov THs émokomys cov. “Thou didst not 
recognize the time in which God visited thee ”—érucxepard ce. 
The whole of this period of opportunity, which culminated é& TH 
4<épa tavry, was unnoted and unused. Like éicxérropar (see on 
i. 68), érucxo7y is a neutral term, and may imply either blessing 
or punishment. Here and 1 Pet. ii. r2 (not v. 6) in the former 
sense, as in Gen. l, 24; Job xxix. 4; Ecclus. xviii. 20; and 
perhaps Wisd. iii. 7. In the sense of visiting with punishment it 
does not occur in N.T., but in LXX. of Exod. iii. 16; Is. x. 3, 
xxix. 6; Wisd. xiv. 11, xix. 15. It is not found in class. Grk. 
For 76v xaipov Syr-Sin. has “ the day.” 4 

Here Lk. rather abruptly ends his account of the triumphal procession. 
The actual entry into the city is not recorded by him. ‘The proposal of 


Schleiermacher and others to distinguish two triumphal entries, one unexpected 
and unannounced, recorded by the three, and one expected and arranged, re- 


XIX. 44,45.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 453 


corded by S. John, is no real help. Does the hypothesis make either record 
more intelligible? What good purpose would a second triumphal procession 
serve? Would the Romans have allowed this popular Teacher to enter the 
city a second time with a tumultuous crowd hailing Him as King? 


45, 46. The Second Cleansing of the Temple. Mt. xxi. 12, 13; 
Mk. xi. 15-17. Both Mt. and Mk. record the entry into Jeru- 
salem. The latter tells us how He entered the city and the 
temple, and having “looked round about upon all things,” went 
back in the evening to Bethany with the Twelve (ver. 11). It was 
the day following that He returned to Jerusalem and cleansed the 
temple, the cursing of the barren fig-tree taking place on the way. 
Lk. omits the latter, and records the former very briefly. He 
groups the cleansing and the subsequent teaching in the temple 
with the triumphal procession as a series of Messianic acts. They 
are all parts of the last great scene in which Jesus publicly assumed 
the position of the Christ. 

That this is a second cleansing, and not identical with Jn. ii. 14-22, may 
be regarded as reasonably certain. What is gained by the identification, which 
involves a gross chronological blunder on the part of either Jn., who places it at 
the beginning of Christ’s ministry, or of the others, who place it at the very end? 
Could any of those who were present, John or Peter, transfer so remarkable an 
event from one end of their experiences to the other? Such confusion in 
memory is not probable, especially when we consider the immense changes 
which distinguish the last Passover in the ministry from the first. That the 
three should omit the first cleansing is only natural, for they omit the whole of 
the early Judzean ministry. Jn. omits the second, as he omits the institution of 
the Eucharist and many other things, because it has been recorded already, and 
is not necessary for the plan of his Gospel. On the other hand, there is no diffi- 
culty in the supposition that the temple was twice cleansed by Jesus. He was 
not so reverenced in Jerusalem that one such act would put an end to the 
scandal for ever. The hierarchy would be glad of this opportunity for publicly 
treating His authority with contempt; and this would be the more easy, as 
Jesus does not seem to have kept the next Passover at Jerusalem (Jn.vi.4). If 
a year or two later He found that the evil had returned, and perhaps increased, 
would He not be likely to act as He did before? There are differences in the 
details as given by Jn. and by the others, which confirm the view that he and 
they are recording different events. 


45. clreOdy els to iepdv. If we had no other account, we 
should suppose that this took place on the same day as the 
triumphal entry. But as Lk. gives no note of time, there is no 
discrepancy between him and Mk. The Court of the Gentiles is 
meant. The traffic would be great as the Passover drew near; 
and, as the hierarchy profited by it, we may be sure that they 
would try to make the attempt to stop it fail. 

qptaro ékBaddev. So also in Mk., whose account is specially 
graphic, as that of an eye-witness. In this respect the narrative in 
Jn. ii. 14 ff. is similar. Heére perhaps npéaro éxB. is merely the 
Hebraistic paraphrase for é£¢@aAev (Mt. xxi. 12) or e£€BadAev. See 
on iil. 8 and xii. 45, and comp. LXX of Gen. ii. 3; Deut.i.5; 


454 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX 45-48, 


Judg. i. 27, 35; 1 Esdr. iv. 1, 13, 33. Lk. omits the buyers, the 
money-changers, and the dove-sellers (Mt. Mk.) ; also His allowing 
no vessel to be carried through the temple (Mk.). 

46. Here the three narratives are almost verbatim the same, 
and very different from Jn. ii. 15, 16. On the first occasion, He 
charged them not to make His Father’s house a house of traffic 
(oixov éuzropiov): now He charges them with having made it a 
robbers’ den (omydo1ov Anorév). The scandal is worse than before. 
For a detailed description see Edersh. Z. & 7. i. pp. 364-374; also 
a remarkable passage in Renan, V. de /. p. 215, in which he points 
out how “ antichristian” the traditions of the temple have always 
been. In the passage from Is. lvi. 7 Lk. substitutes éora: for 
kAnOynoerat, and with Mt. omits zaow tots é6véow, which one would 
have expected Lk. to preserve. Would he have omitted this, if 
he had had Mk., who preserves it, before him? See on xx. 17. 
Comp. py om7jdaov Anoradv 6 olkds pov ob émixéexAnTat TO dvopd 
pov ér aire éxet évurriov buov; (Jer. vil. 11). 


That xat crac before 6 ofxos, and not écrw after mpocevyjs is the right 
reading is sufficiently attested by S?B LR, Arm., Orig. But it is very un- 
natural to take kal €orae with yéypamras: ‘‘It stands written and shall be 
so.” 


47, 48. The Publicity and Popularity of Christ’s Final Teach- 
ing. Mt. xi. 19. These two verses form a link between the 
sections before and after them, introducing the public work which 
followed the public entry. Comp. the similar notice with which 
the record of this brief period of public work closes, xxi. 37, 38. 

47. iv Si8dcxwy. Periphrastic imperfect expressing continued 
action: iv. 31, V. 17, Xlii. 10. For 75 xa’ hpépavy comp. xi. 3. Mt. 
says that He healed the blind and the lame who came to Him in 
the temple. 

oi dpxtepets Kat of ypapparets. Soin all three. The activity of 
the hierarchy is in marked contrast to His: while He teaches and 
heals, they seek to destroy. Lk. alone mentions ot zpérot tod Aaod. 
The difference of designation is against their being identical with 
oi zpeoBurepo. Comp. Acts xiil. 50, xxv. 2, xxviii. 7, 17; Mk. 
Vi. 21. 

Jésus restait ainsi a Jérusalem un provincial admiré des provinciaux 
comme lui, mats repoussé par toute Laristocratze de la nation. .. . Sa voix 


eut a Jérusalem peu @éclat. Les préjugés de race et de secte, les ennemts 
airects de Pesprit de Pévangile, y étaient trop enracinés (Renan, V. de /. 


P+ 344). 


48. 13 ti woujowow. For this use of rd see on i. 62, and comp. 
vi. II. 

5 Nads yap Gas. Not oxAos, not the mere crowd, but the whole 
nation, which was numerously represented. A mixed multitude of 


XIX. 48.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 455 


Jews from all parts of the world was gathering there for the Pass- 
over. These would sympathize with His cleansing of the temple ; 
and His miracles of healing would add to the attractiveness of 
His teaching. This representative multitude “hung on His lips, 
listening.” Comp. pendet narrantis ab ore (Aen. iv. 79) ; narrantts 
conjux pendet ab ore viri (Ov. Her. i. 30). Other examples in 
Wetst. and McClellan. See on xi. 29. 


The form éfexpéuero (SB, Orig.) is preferred by Tisch. and WH. It im- 
plies a pres. xpévouat, But éfexpéuaro, if genuine, is imperf. also. Veitch, 
5. Kpéuapat. 


XX. 1-8 The Question of the Sanhedrin respecting the 
authority of Jesus. Mt. xxi. 23-27; Mk. xi. 27-33. Having 
given a general description of the activity of Jesus and of His 
enemies during these last days, Lk. now gives some illustrations of 
both. It was fear of the people which kept His opponents from 
proceeding against Him: and therefore their first object was to 
discredit Him with His protectors. Then they could adopt more 
summary measures. 


None of the Evangelists enables us to answer with certainty the question 
whether the hierarchy had at first any idea of employing the szcavzz to assassinate 
Jesus. Mt. xxvi. 4 might mean this. But more probably this and other notices 
of plots against the life of Jesus refer to the intention of getting Him out of the 
way by some legal process, either as a blasphemer or as a rebel against the Roman 
government. Of course, if a mob could be goaded into a fury and provoked to 
put Him to death (iv. 29; Jn. viii. 59, x. 31), this would suit their purpose 
equally well. The intrinsic probability of the controversies reported by the 
Evangelists as taking place after the triumphal entry is admitted even by Strauss. 

If the tentative chronology suggested above be accepted, this conversa- 
tion about authority took place probably two days after the entry, and on 
Tuesday, April 4, Nisan 12. This day is sometimes called the ‘‘ Day of Ques- 
tions.” We have (1) the Sanhedrin asking about Authority, and (2) Christ’s 
counter-question about the Baptist ; (3) the Pharisees and Herodians asking about 
the Tribute ; (4) the Sadducees asking about the Woman with Seven Husbands 3 
(5) the Scribe asking which is the First Commandment; (6) Christ’s question 
about Ps. cx. It is Zosszb/e that on this day the question was asked about the 
Woman taken in Adultery ; but that is too precarious to be worth more than a 
passing mention, although Renan places it here without doubt, and makes it the 
proximate cause of the arrest and death of Jesus (V. de //. p. 346). If it were 
included, we might group the questions pressed upon Christ thus: (i.) a personal 
question ; (ii.) a political question ; (iii.) a doctrinal question ; (iv.) an ethical 
question; (v.) a question of discipline. Of hardly any day in our Lord’s 
life have we so full a report. With Lk. xx. and xxi. comp. Mt. xxi. 18—xxvi. 53 
Mk. xi. 20-xiv. 2; Jn. xii. 20-43. It includes at least four parables: the Two 
Sons (Mt. xxi. 28-32), the Wicked Husbandmen (Mt. xxi. 33-44; Mk. 
xii. I-11; Lk. xx. 9-18), the Ten Virgins (Mt. xxv. 1-13), and the Talents 
(Mt. xxv. 14-30). The day may be considered the last working-day of Christ’s 
ministry, the last of His public teaching, the last of activity in the temple, the 
last of instruction to the people and of warning to their leaders. ‘‘It is a picture 
with genuine Oriental local colouring. - We see Jesus sitting, surrounded 


456 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TOS. LUKE [XX.1-3. 


by a multitude awed into silence. They are all devoutly meditating on the 
great Messianic question. From time to time an emissary from His opponents 
steps up to Him with Eastern solemnity and ceremoniousness, to propose some 
well-considered question. Anxiously do the multitude listen for Jesus’ answer. 
Then again follows a meditative silence as before, until at last Jesus Himself 
delivers a connected discourse” (Hausrath, VV. 7. Times, ii. p. 250). 


1. év pid tdv fpepOv. Lk. alone uses this expression (v. 17, 
villi. 22; Comp. v. 12, xiii. 10). He is still indefinite in his 
chronology. Mt. is a little more clear. It is Mk. who enables us 
to distinguish three days ; presumably Sunday, Monday, and Tues- 
day. ‘“ Zhe days” perhaps refers to the “daily teaching in the 
temple ” (xix. 47); and this deputation from the Sanhedrin is the 
result of their “seeking to destroy Him.” We have a similar 
deputation to the Baptist Jn. i. 19. See fourth note on Lk. ix. 22. 
For edayyedLouévou, which defines the character of His teaching 
more clearly than dddacKovros, see on ii. To. 

énéotnoav. One of Lk.’s favourite words (see on ii. 38): “ there 
came upon Him.” So also ody tots mp. and mpds adroy illustrate 
his fondness for these prepositions. Mt. and Mk. here have xai 
for ovv (see on i. 56), and neither of them has zpds after Aéyew. 


The introduction of the ovatze recta by déyorres or Aéyww after elzretv is 
rare (Mk. xii. 26): but either is common after Aa)ety (Acts viii. 26, xxvi. 31, 
XXVili. 25, etc.). 


2. év woia . .. motets; So in all three. The two questions 
are not identical; nor is the second a mere explanation of the first. 
It anticipates the reply, “By the Méessiah’s authority,” with 
another question, “Who made Thee Messiah?” They ask by 
what &izd of authority, human or Divine, ecclesiastical or civil, 
assumed or conferred, He acts. They refer not merely to His 
teaching, but also to His cleansing the temple, as zovets shows. 
On the first occasion they had asked for a oypetov as a guarantee 
for the lawfulness of His zovety (Jn. ii. 18). They do not venture 
to do more than question Him, for they know that the feeling and 
conscience of the people are with Him for putting down their 
extortionate and profane traffic, for His teaching, and for His 
works of healing. ‘This was the one point where He seemed to be 
vulnerable. ‘‘ For there was no principle more firmly established 
by universal consent than that authoritative teaching required 
previous authorization,” because all such teaching was traditional 
‘Edersh. Z. & 7: ii. p. 381). For év éfoucta see on iv. 32. 

8. eimev mpds adtods. Both Mt. and Mk. have airois. 

"Epwrjow tuas Kayo Adyov The Adyor refers to their answer 
rather than His question, as is shown by dy eay eiayré pou (Mt. 
xxi. 24). ‘You ask Me to state My authority. I also will ask 
you for a statement” ; not, “ask you a question” (RV.), nor, “ask 
you one thing” (AV.). As teachers they must speak first. 


XX. 8-8.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 457 


The éva (A C D) is an insertion from Mt, and Mk. om. § BLR, Syr-Sin. 
Latin texts are divided. 


4. Verbatim as Mt. and Mk., except that Mt. inserts adder, 
and Mk. adds dzoxpi6yré wo. “ Baptism of repentance” was the 
special characteristic of John’s teaching (iii. 3). The question as 
to its origin is not a mere escape from their attack by placing them 
in a difficulty: the answer to it would lead to the answer to their 
question. John had testified to the Divine authority of Jesus, 
and his baptism was a preparation for the Messianic Kingdom. 
What had been their view of John’s position? That was a ques- 
tion to which the official guides of the nation were bound, and 
had long been bound, to furnish an answer. For the alternative 
e€ ovpavod or e& dvOpdrwv comp. Acts v. 38, 39. 

5. cvvehoyloavro, Here only in N.T., but classical %CD have 
cuvedoylfovro, Comp. ver. 14. 

6. xatadiOdoe. Here only: but Acbdfey is found Jn. x. 31-33, xi. 8; 
Acts v. 26, xiv. 19. In LXX Ac@dfew occurs twice (2 Sam. xvi. 6, 13), but 
NOoBore is the common verb: comp. xiii. 34; Acts vil. 58. The xara- 
expresses “‘stoning dowz, overwhelming with stones”: comp. kaTadOoBoreiv 


Exod. xvii. 4, and cara\Ootv in Josephus. Here Mt. and Mk. have the less 
definite expression, ‘‘ fear the multitude.” 


mpopytyy etvat. Their intense joy at the reappearance of a 
Prophet after three centuries of silence (p. 80) would be the 
measure of their fury against a hierarchy which should declare that 
John had not been a Prophet at all. Comp. vii. 29, 30. With 6 
hads amas comp. xix. 48. Nowhere else does memetopeévos éeotiv 
occur. 

7. py eidévac 7d0cev, This shameful and dishonest avowal is 
excelled a few days later by their answer to Pilate, “We have no 
king but Ceesar” (Jn. xix. 15). Z?mentes lapidationem, sed magis 
timentes veritatis confessionem (Bede), these professed “Teachers of 
Israel” (Jn. ili. 10), who so scorned the ignorant multitude (Jn. 
vii. 49), confessed that they had not yet decided whether one, 
who for years had been recognized by the nation as a Prophet, 
had any Divine commission. If they were not competent to judge 
of the Baptist, still less were they competent to judge of the Christ. 
Nosgen, Gesch. J. C. i. p. 514. 

8. O88é éyd. Verbatim as in Mt. and Mk. Their refusal to 
answer His question cancels their claim to an answer from Him. 
This they admit by ceasing to press it. See Gould on Mk. xi. 33. 

9-19. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Mt. xxi. 
33-46; Mk. xii. 1-12. Mt. here gives a trilogy of parables, plac- 
ing this one between the Two Sons and the Marriage of the King’s 
Son. Godet thinks that the Two Sons cannot have been uttered 
where Mt. places it. But it fits the preceding discussion about 
the Baptist very well; and Mk., who records one parable only, 


458 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE  [XX.9. 


says qpfaro abrots év rapaBoXats AaXetv, which agrees well with the 
fact that more than one parable was spoken. The idea of “ work 
in the vineyard” is common to both parables. In this parable 
Christ lets His enemies know that He is aware of their murderous 
plans against Himself ; and in it He warns both them and the people 
generally of the fatal results to themselves, if their plans are carried 
out.1 It is the special characteristic of this parable that zt does not 
teach general and permanent truths for the guidance of Christians, 
but refers to past, present, and future events. From the conduct of 
His traditional enemies, especially at that very time, He predicts 
His own end and theirs. The parable is capable of spiritual ap- 
plication as to God’s dealings with churches and individuals, but 
its primary reference is to the treatment which He is receiving 
from the Jewish hierarchy. The parable contains the answer to 
the question which they had raised. He is acting in the authority 
of His Father who sent Him to them. The imagery is taken from 
the O.T. and would be readily understood by the audience. The 
main source is the similar parable Is. v. 1-7 ; but comp. Jer. ii. 21; 
Ezek. xv. 1-6, xix. 10-14; Hos. x. 1; Deut. xxxii. 32, 33, and the 
many other passages in which Israel is spoken of as a vineyard or 
a vine; Ps. lxxx. 8 ff.; Joel i. 7, ete. 


It has been said that the main difference between this parable and Is. v. or 
other O.T. figures is, that there the husbandmen or leaders and teachers of the 
people are not mentioned: it is the mation as a whole that fails in its duty to 
Jehovah. Here it is those who have charge of the nation that are condemned: 
the vineyard itself is not destroyed for its unfruitfulness, but is transferred to 
more faithful stewards. And, in support of this view, it has been pointed out 
that in the first times of the Kingdom the nation went voluntarily into idolatry ; 
ic was not led into it by the priests and other teachers: but now it was mainly 
the official teachers who prevented the people from accepting Jesus as the 
Messiah. This, however, does not fit vv. 15, 16, which show that the tenants 
fre the Jewish nation, and not merely the leaders, and that the vineyard is not 
the nation, but its spiritual privileges. The nation was not to be transferred to 
other rulers, but its privileges were to be transferred to other nations. 


9. “Hptata Sé mpds tov Nady Adyev. There is a pause after the 
discomfiture of the deputation from the Sanhedrin; and then 
Jesus “begins” to address a different company. But while He 
speaks to the people He also speaks a¢ the hierarchy, who are still 
present, though silenced. Mt. and Mk. regard the parable as 
addressed to the latter. Syr-Sin. has “to speak to them.” D,ade 
omit zpds Tov Ady. Comp. v. 36. 


“Av@pwmos. Lk. commonly adds zis: see small print note on xui. 19. 
TR. follows A in adding tts here. 


1 Keim speaks with severity of the ‘‘destructive criticism” which ‘‘again 
miserably fails to see anything but an invention of the dogmatic artist ” in “* this 
grand self-revelation of Jesus,” which is attested by all three Gospels (v. p 
142). 


XX.9,10.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 450 


ébvtevoev apmedGva. The phrase is freq. in O.T. (Gen. ix. 20; Deut. 
xx, 6, xxviii. 30, 39; Ps. cvi. 37, etc.). Lk. omits the fence, the winepress, 
and the tower. 


éééSero, In all three narratives in this place, but nowhere else 
in N.T. In LXX it is used of giving a daughter in marriage ; 
Exod. ii. 213 Ecclus. vii. 25; 1 Mac. x. 58: but the sense of 
letting out for hire is classical; Plat. Leg. vii. 806 D, yewpyiar dé 
éxdcdopevar SovAows awapyiv Tov €K THS yns amoteAovow ixavyy. 
Among the Jews rent was sometimes paid in money, but generally 
in kind. If in kind, it was either a fixed amount of produce, 
whether the harvest was good or bad; or a certain proportion, 
e.g. a third or fourth, of each harvest. This latter system led to 
much disputing and dishonesty, and does so still wherever it is 
adopted. The tenants in the parable have a long lease and pay 
in kind; but it is not clear whether they pay a fixed or a propor- 
tionate amount. 


The same form (-ero, not -oro) is found in the best MSS. in all three. 
Comp. dedidero (Acts iv. 35) and mapedidero (1 Cor. xi. 23). Gregory, 
Proleg. p. 124. 


xpdvous txavods. This addition is peculiar to Lk. See on 
vii. 12, We may understand several years. 
10. katp@. No doubt 6 kaipos tév kaprav (Mt.) is meant. 
Syr-Sin. has “at one of the seasons.” 
améoteikev . . . SodAov. So also Mk., while Mt. has rovs dov- 
Aovs airov. In Lk. it is always a single slave who is sent, and the 
treatment becomes, worse each time, culminating in the slaying of 
the heir, before whom no one is killed. In Mt. and Mk. there 
is no such dramatic climax, and several are killed before the son 
is sent: all which is more in accordance with facts in Jewish 
history. See 1 Kings xvili. 13, xxii. 24-27; 2 Kings vi. 31, xxi. 16; 
2 Chron. xxiv. 19-22, xxxvi. 15, 16; Neh. ix. 26; Jer. xxxvii. Is, 
xliv. 4; Acts vii. 52. 
iva amd tod kaprod. Keim says that this means the O.T. 
tenth ; but it does not necessarily imply a proportionate amount 
at all. A fixed amount, independent of the yield, would be paid 
G76 TOU Kap7ov. 
tva ... Saoovow. The fut. indic. is found in class. Grk. after bres, 
but not after ta. In bibl. Grk. it is found most often in the /as¢ of a series 
of verbs following iva: but cases in which the verb depends immediately upon 
wa occur: 1 Cor. ix. 18; 1 Pet. iii. 1, Rev. vi. 4, viii. 3, ix. 20, xiii. 12, 


xiv. 13, and other passages in which the reading is somewhat doubtful. See 
on xiv. 10. Burton, § 198, 199. 


efaméotetbav . . . kevov. They probably told him, and _per- 
haps tried to persuade themselves that his master’s demand was 
unjust. Excepting Gal. iv. 4, 6, the verb is peculiar in N.T. to 


460 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XX. 10-16, 


Lk. (Acts vii. 12, ix. 30, xi. 22, xil. 11, xill. 26, xvi 54mm) 
but it is freq. in LXX. For the phrase “send empty away” comp. 
i. 533 Gen. xxxi. 42; Deut. xv. 13; 1 Sam. vi. 3; Job xxii.9. For 
Setpavtes See ON Xil. 47. 

11. mpocd0eto mépyor. A Hebraism: see on xix. 11. Whether 
this is a second messenger sent that same vintage, or the messenger 
sent at another vintage, is not stated. The important point is 
that chastisement does not follow upon the first outrage. The 
husbandmen have several opportunities; and these are brought 
by different persons. If one messenger’s manner of delivering his 
message was unpleasing, another’s would be the opposite. But 
this time they add insult (aéripacavres) to violence. Comp. the 
use Of drydlew in Jn. viii. 49; Acts v. 41; Rom.i. 24, i. 23; 
Jas. i. 6. The verb is freq. in LXX. 

12. tpavpaticavtes. Worse than defpavres x. arysdoavres, as 
e€éBadov is worse than éfarécrekav. Comp. Heb. xi. 36-38; 
Acts vii. 52. 

13. Tt moijow; Peculiar to this account ; as also is the quali- 
fying tows, which occurs nowhere else in N.T., and only once in 
LXX (1 Sam. xxv. 21), where English Versions have “surely.” 
Godet contends for such a meaning here: fourtant, en tout cas, 
certainement. But comp. KA. “Iows. AQ@. Ovx iows, GAX’ dvTws 
& Sapovie (Plat. Lazws, xii. 965). 

We must remember that it is the d&v@pwros of ver. 9 who de- 
liberates as to what he shall do, says icws, and expects that his 
son will be well received. All this is the setting of the parable, 
and must not be pressed as referring to God.. This man repre- 
sents God, not by his perplexity, but by his long-suffering and 
mercy. 

évtpawyoovtat. In all three: for the meaning see on xviii. 2, This 
form of the fut. is late. In Polyb. and Plut. the verb sometimes has an acc., 
but in class, Grk. a gen., when it means ‘‘ reverence.” Comp. Exod. x. 3; 
Wisd. ii. 10. 

The idévtes of TR. with A R, Vulg. Goth. comes from ver. 14; om. 
NBCDLQ, acdeffjilqr, Boh. Arm. The Syriac Versions are divided. 
Syr-Sin. is defective here. 


14, S:ehoyiLovro mpds &AAHAous. This touch also is peculiar to 
Lk. It perhaps looks back to xix. 47, 48. Nothing is gained by 
taking zpds a\AnAovs with A€yovres: Comp. pds éavrovs, which is 
equally amphibolous, ver. 5. 

A Kand Latt. have diedoyloavro, cogztaverunt; and ACQ, Vulg. have 
mpos éaurovs from Mk, xii. 7 for mpds d\AjAovs (§ BD LR, Boh. Arm.) 
For 6 kAnpovépos see Wsctt. on Heb. i, 2 and his detached note on Heb. 
vi. 12, p. 167. 

15. éxBaddvtes dméxtewav. This perhaps was intended to re 
present their turning him out of his inheritance. It may be 


xX. 15-17.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 461 


doubted whether it refers to Jesus “suffering without the gate.” 
Outside the vineyard would be outside Israel rather than outside 
Jerusalem. Moreover in Mk. the heir is killed defore he is cast 
out of his inheritance. It is possible that they regard the vine- 
yard as already made over to the heir, as was often the case in 
ancient law: see on xv. 12. Comp. the case of Naboth: éf#pyayov 
avrov é€w THs TéAews Kal éXiGoBoAnoav atrév AiGos, Kat awéGaver 
(1 Kings xx. 13). No doubt é&w t. duedGvos goes with exPa- 
Aovtes (iv. 29; Acts vii. 58, which is closely parallel), not with 
dzréxtewvav. 

tt ovv mouoer aitois; Not, ré ody éxoigcey; Our Lord in- 
dicates that the parable is not a mere fiction: it is a key toa 
future which depends upon present action. Assuming that the 
heir is killed, what will happen? In Mt. some of the bystanders 
answer the question. They are so interested, and enter so fully 
into the spirit of the narrative, that, witnout seeing the application 
to themselves, they reply xaxots xax@s drodéoe avtovs. See on 
xix. 25, and comp. David’s reply to Nathan’s parable (2 Sam. 
xil. 5, 6 

7. éhedoetat kal dmohdcer . . . kat Sdcet. Three points: He 
will no longer send but come ; will punish the wrong-doers ; will 
transfer their privileges to others. The Jews were familiar with the 
idea of the Gentiles being gathered into the Messianic Kingdom 
(Is. ii. 2; lx. passim; Jer. ii. 17). Yet this was restricted to 
those Gentiles who had taken no part in oppressing Israel, but had 
submitted to Israel; and later Judaism as a rule denied even this 
to the heathen (Charles, Zzoch, xc. 30). Here the Jews are to lose 
what the Gentiles gain. 

dxoUcavtes Sé eimay Mi) yévorro. We need not confine this tc 
the Zeop/e and conclude that “the Pharisees had too much warines : 
and self command to have allowed such an exclamation to escape 
from their lips.” The exclamation may not mean more than 
“That is incredible,” or “ Away with the thought.” See Lft. on 
Gal. ii. 17 and Sanday on Rom. iii. 4. This is the only instance 
of pi yévorro in N.T. outside the Pauline Epp., where it generally 
is used to scout a false inference which might be drawn. Burton, 
§ 176, 177. Here it probably refers to the punishment rather 
than to the sin which brings it,—to dwodéoea kai déce rather than 
to dméxrewar. 


The expression is rare in the Pauline Epp. except in Rom., where it 
occurs ten times: twice in Gal. and once in 1 Cor. In LXX it is rare, and 
never stands as an independent sentence: Gen. xliv. 7, 17; Josh. xxii. 29, 
xxiv. 16; 1 Kings xx. [xxi.] 3. 


17. épBdépas adtots. Lk. alone has this touch. Comp. 
xxii. 61 and Elisha’s fixed look on Hazael (2 Kings viii. 11). 


462 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 17, 18 


Ti ody éottv. “If the destruction which I have just foretold is 
not to come (pu yévorro), how chen do you explain this text?” 
The passage is once more (see on ver. 9) from the Hallel Psalms 
(cxvili. 22, 23), where see Perowne. The Rabbis recognized it as 
Messianic: see Schoettg. i. p. 173. In all three Gospels the 
quotation is verbatim as in LXX. For 16 yeypappévov see on 
Xxlil. 37, and for dmo8oxipacav see on ix. 22. Perhaps AtOov is “a 
stone” rather than “He stone”: the builders may have rejected 
many stones, one of which became xegad7 ywvias. But, if the 
Jews used Ai@os as a name for the Messiah, as seems to be prob- 
able, ‘‘¢Ze stone” is better. In Justin Martyr we have Aifos as a 
name for Christ (Z77y. xxxiv. xxxvi.): see on Rom. ix. 33. 


For the attraction of Al0ov to éy sce on ili. 19, and for éyev7}6y e/g sce On 
xiii. 19. 


Kepadt) ywvias. Not the key-stone of the arch, but a corner- 
stone uniting two walls; but whether a foundation-stone at the 
base of the corner, or a completing stone at the top of it, is un- 
certain. Comp. Acts iv. 11 and 1 Pet. ii. 7; also dxpoywveatos in 
Eph. i. 20 and Is. xxviii. 16. Mt. and Mk. quote ver. 23 of Ps. 
Cxvill. as well as ver. 22, and Mt. adds the explanation that the 
Kingdom shall be transferred to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
thereof. Would Lk. have omitted this reference to the believing 
and loyal Gentiles if he had known it? We conclude that he was 
not familiar with Mt.’s account. See on xix. 46. 

18. mas 6 meohy . . . adtdv. These words are not in Mk. and 
are of somewhat doubtful authority in Mt. xxi. 44, where they are 
omitted by D 33, or bdeff,, Syr-Sin., Orig. But the charac- 
teristic as is in any case peculiar to Lk. The first half of the 
saying seems to be an adaptation of Is. vill. 14, and the second 
half an adaptation of Dan. ii. 34, 35, 44. Christ is a stumbling- 
block to some (ii. 34), and they suffer heavily for their short- 
sightedness. They not only lose the blessing which is offered, 
but what they reject works their overthrow. 

cuvO\acOycerar. “Shall be shattered”; confringetur (Lat. 
Vet., Beza), conguassabitur (Vulg.), wird zerschellen (Luth.). But 
in Mt. xxi. 44 Vulg. has confringetur. The verb occurs nowhere 
else in N.T., but the act. is found in LXX (Ps. lvii. 7; Mic. iii. 3), 
and several times as 2.7. 

ep dv 8 av wéon. Note the impressive change of construction. 
In the first case the man is the chief agent; in the second the 
stone. And the main thought now is simply Ad@os: the metaphor 
of xefadi ywvias is dropped. A chief corner-stone would not be 
likely either to trip up a person or to fall on him. 

Atkpyoer adtov. The rendering “grind to powder,” which all 
English Versions from Tyn. to AV. give (Rhem. “breake to 


XX. 18, 19.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 463 


pouder”), follows the comminuet of Vulg. (in Mt. conteret), but is 
without authority. Not only in classical authors (Hom. Xen. 
Plut. Lucian,), but also in LXX, it means “to winnow chaff from 
grain,” from AuKcpés, “a winnowing fan.” In Ruth ili, 2, Aucud 
Tov dAwva tov KkpiOdv, and Ecclus. v. 9, py Ackpa ev ravrt avéuo, 
the meaning is indisputable. Hence “to blow away like chaff, 
sweep out of sight or out of existence”: dvaArjpiperar S€ airov 
Kavowv Kat daeAevoerat, Kal Atkuyoe avtov €k TOU TOroV aiTod 
(Job xxvii. 21); kat wdppw airov dwéerar ds xvodv axvpov Aukpov- 
Tov drévavtt avepov (Is. xvii. 13); 6 Arkpyoas tov “Iopand cvvager 
avrov (Jer. xxxi. 10); Kat Aikuyow ev raow Tos Everw Tov olKov 
Tov “Iopan\, ov tporov AiKwarar év 7H Ackus (Amos ix. 9). Dan. 
ii. 44 is important, as being the probable source of the saying: 
there, while in LXX we read zardéa xai agavioe, Theodotion has 
Aerruvel kat Aukpnoe, Showing that AuKpjyoa=adpavice. Comp. 
Theod. éyévero doel Kovioptos amd Gdwvos Gepwys, kai e&qpev 7d 
mARGos ToD wvevpatos, Kal Téros ovx eipéOy avrois (Dan. ii. 35). 
“Scatter him as chaff,” therefore, is the meaning. When a heavy 
mass falls, what is pulverized by the blow is scattered by the rush 
of air. The commovet illum of Cod. Palat. (e) looks like an attempt 
to preserve the right idea. 

19. év adi TH po. “In that very hour”: Lk.’s usual expression: 
see on x. 7, 21. There is no equivalent to it here in Mt. or Mk. 

éyvwcay yap St. mpds adtovs. So also in Mk. xii. 12, while 
Mt. has epi avrév. Vulg. has ad zpsos here and ad eos in Mk. 
But apés may be either “with a view to, in reference to” (see on 
xii, 41, xVili. 1, 9, xix. 9), or “against” (AV. RV.): comp. Acts 
xxiii. 30. Here, as in Heb. i. 7, 8, Wsctt. prefers the meaning 
“in reference to”: comp. Rom. x. 21; Heb. xi. 18. The nom. 
to éyvworar is ot ypappareis, not 6 Aads, which would require éyva, 
to be unambiguous. In Mt. the nom. to éyvwcay must be the 
hierarchy. And ydp gives the reason, not for é{jryoay, but for 
époByOnoav, as the order of the sentences shows: and this is still 
more clear in Mk. by the change of tense from é{#rovv (see Gould). 
The hierarchy recognize that the parable was directed against 
themselves ; and this made them fear the people, who had heard 
the parable also. 


In class. Grk. rpés twa often means ‘‘in reply to,” and hence ‘‘ against,” 
being less strong than xard twos, as adversus than zm. Here Beza has 
adversus zpsos and Luther azf sze. 


20-26. The Question about the Tribute. Mt. xxii. 15-22; 
Mk. xii. 13-17. There is no evidence that a night intervened 
between the previous question and this one. The connexion 
between vv. 19 and 20 is close; and ver. 19 took place év avrg 
7 pa with what precedes. The previous question about 


464 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XX. 20, 


authority had emanated from the Sanhedrin as a whole. The 
different parties represented in it now act separately and devise 
independent attacks. This one comes from the Pharisees (Mt. 
Xxll. 15), who send a group composed of Pharisees and Herodians 
(Mt. xxii. 16; Mk. xii. 13). Neither Lk. nor Jn. mention the 
Herodians. Their alliance with Pharisees is remarkable, for the 
Pharisees detested the Herodian dynasty ; and this is not the first 
instance of such an alliance (Mk. ili. 6). But opponents often 
combine to attack those who are obnoxious to both. 

20. tapatnpyoavtes. See on xiv. 1. Both AV. and RV. 
follow Tyn. Cran. Cov. and Gen. in translating “ watched im” ; 
but neither indicates by italics that “him” is not in the Greek. 
Wic. and Rhem. have no pronoun, in accordance with Vulg. 
observantes miserunt. It is doubtful whether the pronoun ought 
to be supplied, for zaparypeivy without case may mean “to watch 
an opportunity.” See Field and Alford, ad Joc. Mt. has his 
favourite mopevOértes. 


D and some Versions here have dmoxwp7jcavres: so Goth. Aeth. cum 
recessissent (fi1), cum adiscesstssent (a), recedentes (A), secesserunt et (e). 


evkabérous. ‘Suborned to lie in wait”; lit. “sent down into.” 
In N.T. here only, and in LXX Job xix. 12, xxxi. g: but classical. 
Comp. Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 2. The toxpwopevous shows for what 
purpose they were suborned : they posed as scrupulous persons with 
a difficulty of conscience. In different ways all three accounts call 
attention to their hypocrisy. Meyer quotes, Qui ‘um, cum maxime 
Jallunt, id agunt ut viri boni videantur (Cic. De Of. i. 13. 41). 

émudBwvtat attod Adyou. “Take Him in His speech”; airod 
depending upon éAa. and Adyou being epexegetic (De W. Mey. 
Go.): rather than “take hold of His speech,” atrod depending 
upon Adyov (Holtz. Hahn). Vulg. has eum in sermone. So also 
Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. Rhem. Luth. Comp. éreAdBero pov tis 
atodjs (Job xxx. 18) and émrAapPaverar avtod rs irvos (Xen. 
Anab. iv, 7.12). Mt. has drws airov raywWetowow ev Adyw, Mk. 
iva avtov dypevowow Ady». Jesus had baffled them with a dilemma 
(ver. 4), and they now prepare a dilemma for Him. Comp. the 
constr. in xix. 4. 

dote tapadodvat ... Tod hyepdvos. Peculiar to Lk. Quod 
per se non poterant, presidis manibus efficere tentabant, ut veluti 
ipsi a morte ejus viderentur immunes (Bede). For dore comp. 
iv. 29; Mt. xxiv. 24. 

7H dpxf Kal tH efoucia +. yep. It is an improbable refine- 
ment to press the double article and separate 77 dpyy from rod 
hyepovos: “so as to deliver Him to the Government, and (in 
particular) to the authority of the governor” (Mey. Weiss) ; or, “so 
as to deliver Him to the rule (of the Sanhedrin), and to the 


XX. 20-24.| LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 405 


authority of the governor” (Nésg. Hahn). For the combination 
of dpxy with éfovota comp. xii. 11; 1 Cor. xv, 24; Eph. iii, 10; 
Col. i. 16, ii. 15; Tit. ili. 1. See Lft. on Col. i. 16. 


The generic term 7yyeudv may be used of the emperor (comp. jyyenovla 
iii. 1) or any of his subordinates. In N.T. it is often used of the émlrpozos or 
procurator (Mt. xxvii. 2, 11, 14, etc. ; Acts xxiii. 24, 26, 33, xxiv. I, 10, etc.) 
and less definitely of any governor (xxi. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 14). Comp. Jos. 
Ant. xviii. 3. 1; and iyenovedy ii. 2, iii. I. 


21. dpOws déyers Kal SiSdoxers. The falseness of these fulsome 
compliments in their mouths (oidapev 671) stamps this as one of 
the most dastardly of the attacks on Christ. They go on to 
emphasize their flattery by denying the opposite. 

ob AapBdvers mpdcwmov. Affreux barbarisme pour des lecteurs 
grecs (Godet). The expression is a Hebraism, which originally 
meant “raise the face,” ¢.e. make the countenance rise by favour- 
able address, rather than “accept the face.” Hence it came to 
mean “regard with favour,” but not necessarily with wadue favour : 
comp. Ps. lxxxi. 2; Mal. i. 8, 9. But the bad sense gradually pre- 
vailed ; and both here and in Gal. ii. 6 (see Lft.) partiality is 
implied, as in Lev. xix. 15 and Mal. ii. 9. In LXX the common 
phrase is Oavydley mpdowrov: comp. Jude 16. The compounds 
MporwmroAnpTTyS, Tporwrodnpiyia, etc., always imply favouritism. 


Both Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. for ‘“‘ way of God” read ‘‘ word of God.” 

22. The $épos (classical and in LXX) or capitation-tax must be dis- 
tinguished from 7é\7, which are indirect taxes. Mt. and Mk. here have 
khvoov, but in Mk. émuxepddatov is a notable v./, 

For npas (NA BL) TR. has qutv (CD PIAATI). Only here and vi. 4 
does ébeorw ¢. acc. et infin. occur in N.T. Kafoape stands first with 
emphasis. Usually both dat. and acc. follow Sodvas: i. 74, 77, xii. 32, xvii. 
18; Acts v. 31, vil. 5; Mt. xix. 7, xx. 4, etc. 


23. Katavoyoas ... Tavoupylav. Mt. has yvots .. . movyptay, 
Mk. <idws . . . tadxpiow. See on xii. 27 for Lk.’s fondness for 
ckatavoéw, In N.T., as in class. Grk., ravovpyia always has a bad 
meaning (1 Cor. iii. 19; 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3; Eph. iv. 14). In 
LXX it may mean “versatility, skill” (Prov. i. 4, viii. 5). 

24, Aci~até pot Syvdpiov. Mk. has dépere, which implies that 
they had to fetch it. They would not have heathen money on 
their persons. Mt. has zpooyveyxay aro, which implies the same 
thing ; and he calls it 76 véutopa rod Kyvoov, because this poll-tax 
had to be paid in denarit. 


Tl pe wedgere (AC D P) is an insertion here from Mt. and Mk. NBL 
omit. See Wright, Syzopsis, § 80, p. 73. 


Kaigapos. Probably that of Tiberius. There was no royal 
effigy on Jewish coins : and Roman copper coins, if for circulation in 


39° 


466 fHE GOSPFT, ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XX. 24, 26 


Palestine, had no image on them. It was a base piece of flattery 
on the part of Herod Philip that he placed on his coins the head 
of the emperor, and the dezarivs used on this occasion may have 
been one of his. It is possible but not probable that it was a 
foreign coin, such as circulated outside Palestine! “Judas of 
Galilee” (Acts v. 37; Jos, Avz. xviii. 1. 6, xx. 5. 2) or the 
Gaulonite (Avs. xviii. 1. 1) had denounced the payment of tribute 
to Czesar as treason against Jehovah, the only Lord that Israel 
could acknowledge (A.D. 6): and probably the Galileans who were 
listening to Jesus on this occasion were thoroughly in sympathy. 
But His adversaries had conceded the whole point when they 
aamitted that the coinage was Ceesar’s: for even Judaism admitted 
that coinage implies the right of taxati., and is evidence of the 
government to which submission is due. Ubdicungue numisma 
alicujus regis obtinet, illic incole regem istum pro domino agnoscunt 
(Maimon.). See Edersh. Z. & 7° ii P- 3853 Fix. of J. NV. p: 
257. Grotius quotes Tiva éxe xapaxrjpa tovro TO T Tpagcdptor ; 
Tpravod (Arrian. Zpice. iv. 5. 17). 


25. Tolvuy aréSote. This s the right order (SBL, Boh. Goth. 
Arm.), contrary to the best usa,e; and hence the correction dmédore Tolvus 
(ACPAATI). D, Syr-Sin. und Lat. Vet. omit rolvuy. For rolvu first in the 
sentence comp. Heb. xiii. 13 ; Is. iii. 10, v. 13, and contrast 1 Cor. ix. 265 
Wisd. i. 11, viii. 9, The rolvuy (Mk. ofv) marks the sayings as a conclusion 
drawn from the previous admission: ‘‘ Then render to Czesar,” etc. 


74 Katcapos Kaicapt, This is the answer to the Pharisaic 
portion of His questioners, as ra tod Ocod TG Oecd to the Herodian. 
The error lay in supposing that Czsar and God were mutually 
exciusive alternatives. Duty to Cesar was part of their duty to 
God, because for purposes of order and government Czesar was 
God’s vicegerent. In Rom. xii. 1, 2 S. Paul insists on the second 
of these principles, in xiii. 1-7 on the first. See detached note at 
the end of Rom. xiiii As Judza was an imperial province, its 
taxes would go to the jiscws of the emperor, not to the evarium of 
the senate. 

+4 Tod @eod. No one duty is to be understood to the exclusion 
of others, whether offerings in the temple, or penitence, etc. All 
duties owed by man to God are included.? For dodidwyu of paying 
what is due comp. Vil. 42, X 35, xil. 59; and see Wsctt. on Heb. 


1Some ‘‘heretic” sent R. Juda an imperial denarius, and he was deciding 
not to accept it, when another Rabbi advised him to accept it and throw it 
into a well before the donor’s feet (Avoda Sara f. 6 quoted by Wetst. on Mt. 
XAll, 21); 

2It may be doubted whether the idea that man bears the image of God 
just as the coin bears the image of Czesar is to be supplied: ‘‘ Render then the 
coin to Czesar, and give the whole man up to God” (Latham, 4 Servece of 
Angels, D. 50). 


+ 


XX. 25, 26.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 467 


xii. rr. They had said ¢dpov Sodvaz, as if the tribute was a 
gift. By substituting azddore He indicates that it is a due. 

26. otk icxuoav . . . évavtiov tod Aaod. Peculiar to Lk., who 
draws special attention to this further victory of Jesus. All three 
record the wonder of His adversaries. 

For the constr. of a’rof see on ver. 20. This use of évyayrloy is 
common in LXX, but in N.T, is found only here, xxiv. 19; Acts vii. 10, 


viii. 32: comp. évavrt i. 8; Acts viii. 21. 
For Oavpaflery ért see on ii. 33, and for ovygv see on xviii. 39. 


27-38. The Question of the Sadducees respecting a Woman 
with Seven Husbands. Mt. xxii. 23-33; Mk. xii. 18-27. Mt. 
tells us expressly that this took place év éxeivy ri jyépa. Lk. 
mentions the Sadducees several times in the Acts (iv. 1, v. 17, 
- xxiii, 6-8) but here only in his Gospel. Mk. also here only. 
This question was less dangerous than the previous one. It con- 
cerned a matter of exegesis and speculation, not of politics, and 
was doctrinal rather than practical. Like the first two questions, 
it aimed at destroying Christ’s influence with the multitude. 
While the first aimed at inspiring them with distrust, and the 
second at rousing their indignation against Him, this one is calcul- 
ated to excite their ridicule. If Jesus failed to answer it, He and 
His supporters would be placed in a grotesque position. The 
Sadducees were not popular, for the doctrine of the resurrection 
is precious to the majority of mankind, and they would be glad of 
this opportunity of publicly exhibiting the popular doctrine as 
productive of ludicrous results. Josephus says that when Sad- 
ducees became magistrates, they conformed to the views of the 
Pharisees, for otherwise the people would not tolerate them (Azzé. 
xviii. 1. 4). 


But the doctrine of the resurrection and of invisible powers (Acts xxiii. 8; 
Jos. B. 7. ii. 8. 14) was not the main point in dispute between Sadducees and 
Pharisees, but a deduction from the main point. The crucial question was 
whether the oral tradition was binding (Av#. xiii. 10. 6). The Pharisees con- 
tended that it was equal in authority to the written Law, while the Sadducees 
maintained that everything not written was an open question and might be 
rejected. Apparently the Pharisees were willing to concede that the doctrine 
of the resurrection is not to be found in the written Law; and indeed outside 
the Book of Daniel it is not clearly taught in O.T. What is said in favour of 
it (Job xix. 26; Ps. xvi. 9, 11; Is. xxvi. 19) seems to be balanced by statements 
equally strong on the other side (Ps. vi. 5, Ixxxviii. 10, II, cxv. 17 ; Eccles. ix. 
4-10; Is. xxxviii. 18, 19). Hence it followed, on Sadducean principles, that the 
doctrine was without authority, and was simply a pious opinion. That the Sad- 
ducees rejected the O.T., with the exception of the Pentateuch, is a mistake of 
Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Jerome, and others; and perhaps arises from 
confusion with the Samaritans. But no Jew regarded the other books as equal 
in authority to the Books of Moses; and hence Jesus, in answering the 
Sadducees, takes His argument from Exodus (Bleek, Jt. to O.7. § 305, Eng. 
tr. ii. p. 310), The name Zaddouxaios probably comes from Zadok, the best 
attested form of which in many passages of LXX is Zaddovn (2 Sam. viii. 173 


468 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 27-33 


Neh. iii. 29, x. 21, xi. 11, xiii. 13; Ezek. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xliv. 15, xlvili, 11): 
but whzch Zadok gave the name to the sect, remains doubtful (Schiirer, Jewish 
People in the T. of J. C. Il. ii. pp. 29-43; Hausrath, 4.7. Temes, i. pp. 
136-150; Pressensé, Le Szécle Apostolique, pp. 87, 88, ed. 1888. For minor 
points of difference between Sadducees and Pharisees, see Kuenen, Religion 
of Israel, iii. pp. 234-238 ; Derenbourg, pp. 132-144). 


27. tiwes Tv LaS8ouxaiwy ot héyovres. The of Aey. may agree 
with tives, or be an irregular description of tév 2088. In the 
latter case comp. Mk. xii. 40; but the former is better. All 
Sadducees held that the resurrection was not an article of faith, 
but some may have believed that it was true. One might render 
ot Xéyorres “who were saying” at that moment. 

A€yorres is the reading of NBCDL 1 33 etc., de Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. 


Aegypt. Goth. Aeth., which is not discredited because it is also in Mt. 
But Tisch. follows APT AATI etc. in reading dvridéyortes. 


"Edv tivos &SeAbds. The quotation gives the substance rather 
than the wording of Deut. xxv. 5; comp. Gen. xxxvili. 8. The 
levirate law is said still to prevail among the Kalmucks and 
other nations in the East. See Morison on Mk. xii. 19. 

29. énta otv adeXpol. The ody appears to indicate that what 
is about to be narrated was a consequence of this levirate law. 
But the ovy may be a mere particle of transition. Mt. inserts 
map iv, as if they professed to describe what had actually taken 
place. It is said to have been a well-known problem, the recog- 
nized answer to which was, that at the resurrection the woman 
would he the wife of the first brother. This answer Christ might 
have given; but, while it would have avoided the ridicule to which 
the Sadducees wished to expose Him, it would not have refuted 
their doctrine. D, Syr-Sin. cd ff,1q ins. wap’ jpiv here. 

dtexvos. ‘“ Childless” asin ver. 28: comp. ver. 31. All three 
imply that there was neither son nor daughter. And this is laid 
down in the Talmud,—that the deceased brother must have no 
child at all, although Deut. xxv. 5 says simply “have no son” (RV.). 
Some maintained that the levirate law, which to a large extent 
had gone out of use, did not apply to a wedded wite, but.only to 
a betrothed woman. The Mishna recommends that the levirate 
law be not observed. 


80. kal 6 SevTepos. This is the reading of NBDL 157, e, omitting 
AhaBev after cal and ri yuvaika cal obros dwé@avev drexvos after 6 detrepos. 
These insertions are found in APT A ATI, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Vulg. 


81. od katéAumoy Téxva Kal dméfavov. The main point is placed 
first, although their death logically precedes. 

83. tivos adrav yiverot yuv; The question is a plausible 
appeal to the rough common sense of the multitude, and is based 
upon the coarse materialistic views of the resurrection which then 
prevailed. 


XX. 34-36.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 469 


84. Jesus begins by removing this erroneous basis and shows 
that the question is futile. The words oi viot tod aidvos.. . 
tuxetv are peculiar to Lk., who omits “ Ye do err, not knowing 
the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” Comp. Eph. i. 21. 

85. of Sé Katagiwwévtes Tod aidvos exeivov. One might have 
expected simply oi viot +. aiévos éx. But the substitution of 
xaéiwévres corrects the assumption that all the sons of this world 
will enter the Kingdom which begins with the resurrection. 
Comp. Acts v. 41; 1 Thes. i. 5. Nowhere else does oi aiwv 
éxeivos occur in N.T. It means the age beyond the grave regarded 
as an age of bliss and glory. See on Rom. xii. 2. In itself it 
implies resurrection; but, inasmuch as this is the doctrine in 
dispute, the resurrection is specially mentioned. The word dvd- 
otacts occurs Zech. ili. 8; Lam. ill. 63; Dan. xi. 20; title of 
Ps. Ixv. But not until 2 Mac. vii. 14, xii. 43 is it used of 
resurrection after death. 

Tis ék vexpov. This must be distinguished {" i.. [}] avaoracts 
tov] vexpdv. The latter is the more compreh.ie:ve term and 
implies that a// the dead are raised (Mt. xxii. 31 ; Acts xvii. 32, 
Ski G, Xx, 20, XXvL. 23° hom, £43 % Cor. xy. 12, 13, 425 
Heb. vi. 2). Whereas davaoracis éx vexpdv rather implies that 
some from among the dead are raised, while others as yet are not. 
Hence it is used of the resurrection of Christ and of the righteous, 
and is equivalent to the avdoraois fwys (Acts iv. 2; 1 Pet. i. 3: 
comp. Col. i. 18). The avdoracis vexpdv includes the avacracis 
xpicews as well as the av. fwys (Jn. v. 29). Comp. xiv. 14; 
1 Thes. iv. 16; Rev. xx. 5,6; and see Lft. on Phil. iii. 11 and 
Mey. on Rom. i. 4. With the construction comp. rovrov tuxeiv 
ov 7E.WOnv adres (Aesch. P. V. 239). 

yopiLovrar, Identical in meaning with yapiéoxovrat (ver. 34). 

In both verses the simple verb is the right reading. In both places TR. 
follows inferior authorities in reading éxyap. 


86. obdé yap dmofavetv. The ydp means that the abolition of 
death involves the abolition of marriage, the purpose of which is 
to preserve the human race from extinction. 


For oi (ABDLP 106 157) Tisch. has ooré (NQRIAAT). It 
looks like a correction, 


todyyehou ydp eiow. The adj. occurs here only in bibl. Grk. 
and was probably coined by Lk. on the analogy of isdorepos 
(4 Mac. xvii. 5), ioude\ghos, iodbeos, x.7.A. Mt. and Mk. have 
@s dyyeAo. Grotius quotes from Hierocles rots icodatpovas Kat 
ivayyedous Kai Tois dyavois Hpwow dpuofovs. “They do not marry, 
because they cannot die; and they cannot die, because they are 
like angels ; and they are sons of God, being sons of the resur- 


470 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 36-38 


rection.” In correcting the error of the Sadducees about the 
resurrection Jesus incidentally corrects their scepticism respecting 
Angels (Acts xxii. 8). See Latham, 4 Service of Angels, pp. 
52-60. 

The connexion of kal viol elo.y Qcod is uncertain. The repetition of 
elowy is rather against the clause being taken with lodyyehou ydp elow. More 
probably it is co-ordinate with ovdé daofavety divayra. It is worth noting 
that both in Job i. 6, ii. 1, and Gen. vi. 2 LXX has not viol but dyyedou 
Tod Geod. Comp. I Cor. xv. 52; Rev. xxi. 4. But in any case it is the 
émmortality of the Angels, not their sexlessness or immateriality, that is the 
point of the argument. For tijs av. viol dvtes see on xxiii. 8. 


87. Having shown that their question ought not to have been 
asked, being based upon a gross misconception of the conditions 
of the future state, Jesus proceeds to answer the objection which 
their question implied, viz. that the doctrine of the resurrectioz 
is inconsistent with the Mosaic Law. On the contrary, Moses 
implies the doctrine. The levirate law is no argument against a 
resurrection ; and the passage here quoted is a strong argument 
in favour of it. 

kat Mwuoys. “Even Moses,” who was supposed to be against 
the doctrine (Mey. Weiss, Holtzm.). Less well, ettam Moses, non 
modo prophetez (Beng.). Jesus quotes Moses because they had 
done so (ver. 28), not because the Sadducees accepted only the 
Pentateuch (Tert. Orig. Hieron.), which was not the case. 

épnvucev. Not, “hinted,” but “disclosed, intimated, revealed.” 
Both in class. and bibl. Grk. pyvvw is specially used of making 
known what was secret (Acts xxiii. 30; 1 Cor. x. 28; Jn. xi. 57; 
Soph. O. #&. 102). 

éxt tis Bdétou. “In the Bush,” ze. in the portion of Scripture 
known as “the Bush.” In Mk. we have év r7 BiBAw Movoews 
ért tod Barov, where AV. violently transposes ézi 7. 6.,—“ how in 
the bush God spake unto him.” Comp. 2 Sam. i. 18 and Rom. 
xi. 2. The O.T. was divided into sections, which were named 
after something prominent in the contents. Examples are quoted 
from the Talmud. The rhapsodists divided Homer into sections 
and named them on a similar principle. In the Koran the 
chapters are named in this way. But the possibility of the simple 
local meaning here must not be excluded. 


The gender of Bdros varies. Here and Acts vii. 35 it is fem. In Mk. 
and in LXX it is masc. (Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4; Deut. xxxiii, 16). So also in 
Polyb. and Theophr. Several Old Latin texts here read szcut dixet vide 
in rubo (cfff,ilq), which seems to imply a Greek text ws Aéye eldop 


éy Tp B. 
88. The Sadducees based their denial of the resurrection on 
the alleged silence of Scripture and on the incredibility of exist- 
ence after the death of the body (Jos. 2. /. ii. 8.14). Christ 


XX. 88-40.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 471 


demolishes their premises by showing that Scripture is not silent, 
but teaches the reality of existence after death. His argument 
has less force against those who admit existence after death, but 
hold that this existence of the soul apart from the body will 
continue for ever. This, however, was not the error which He 
was combating, and perhaps was not a common view. Yet even 
against this error the argument has force, as Bengel points out. 
Deus non est non entis deus: tpse est deus vivens; ergo tt gut 
deum habent, vivese debent, et qua parte vivere intermiserant, 
reviviscere in perpetuum, But perhaps this is more than is in- 
tended. What is obvious is this:—Dead things may have a 
Creator, a Possessor, a Ruler: only living beings can have a God. 
If Abraham or any of the patriarchs had ceased to exist when he 
died, God would have ceased to be his God. “I am the God of 
Abraham” implies that Abraham still lives. Comp. oi da tov 
@cov axobavevres Ldcw 74 OG, dorep “ABpadp x. "Ioadx x. “TaxdB 
(4 Mac. xvi. 25).2 It is in reference to us that they seem to die- 
in reference to Him zavres ficou. The mdvtes need not be re- 
stricted to the three patriarchs: it includes all who are mentioned 
in vv. 35, 36. Mk. adds zoAd zAavaobe, but the condemnation of 
this doctrinal error is less severe than of the Pharisaic hypocrisy 

89, 40. The Testimony of the Scribes. Some of the Pharisees 
could not refrain from expressing their admiration of the manner 
in which Jesus had vanquished their opponents. That proof of 
the doctrine of the resurrection, which Sadducees had defied 
the Pharisees to find in the Pentateuch, Jesus had produced, and 
in the most convincing manner. The scribes were now persuaded 
that it was useless to ply Jesus with hard questions. Such 
attempts merely gave Him the opportunity of winning victories 
But we learn from Mt. and Mk. that one of them came forward to 
try Him once more (zepdé{wv aizrév) with a question that was 
much debated, as to which commandment was chief. There is 
nothing to show, however, that there was any snare in the ques- 
tion: the scribe may have wished to try His sagacity on a point 
which was very interesting. That a similar inquiry has been 
narrated elsewhere (x. 25), may be Lk.’s reason for omitting the 
incident here. 


40. ydp. The fact that this was not understood caused it to be altered 
if many texts into 6é. Godet maintains that it ‘‘ has absolutely no sense,” and 





1 Gamaliel is said to have silenced Sadducees by quoting such promises as 
Deut. i. 8, xi. 9. God’s promises must be fulfilled, and these were not fulfilled 
to the patriarchs during their lifetime. Again, if God quickened buried seed, 
how much more His own people (Edersh. A7st. of J. N. p. 316). 

2? The Fourth Book of Maccabees, although written before the destruction 
of Jerusalem, was probably written not verv long before Christian interpola- 
tions, or conscious imitations of Christian phraseology, are possible (Scbirer, 
Jewish People in the T. of J. C. Ul. iii. p. 244). 


472 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 40-42, 


erroneously states that WH. have abandoned it. It is attested by NBL, 33, 
Aegyptt., and gives excellent sense. Some of His opponents praised Him, 
Jor they saw that He was always victorious, and that they must risk no more 
defeats. 


41-44 Jesus in turn asks a Question about David and the 
Messiah. Mt. xxii. 41-46; Mk. xii. 35-37, where see Gould. It 
is yet another opportunity of instructing them, not of vanquishing 
and humiliating them, that is sought. The approbation recorded 
in ver. 39 (comp. Mk. xii. 32) gave signs that some of His opponents 
were open to conviction, and might even now recognize the 
Christ. 

41. mpds adtots. The scribes who had expressed admiration 
are perhaps chiefly meant. In any case, “unto them” and not 
“in reference to them” is the meaning. 

Nas Adyouow. Mt. gives of ypapparets as the subject of 
Aéyovow, which does not imply that the scribes had gone away. 
“‘ With what right do teachers say?” This is the usual doctrine; 
but do people consider what it involves in reference to other 
statements ? 


42. airds ydp. This is the reading of §XBLR 1 33, 1, Aegyptt., and 
may be safely preferred to cal airés (A D P, Syrr. Vulg. Goth.). Q has xal 
autos yap. 


év BiBkw Yahav. See on iii. 4. Mt. has wvevyore and Mk. 
TO Tv. TO ayiw for BiBAw Vorpaov. The quotation is verbatim the 
same in all three, excepting that Mt. and Mk. have tzoxarw for the 
brorddiov of LXX. and Lk. All three omit the 6 before Kvptos. 
In the Hebrew we have different words for Lord: “ Jehovah saith 
to my Adonai.” Ps. cx. was always believed to be Messianic, and 
to have been written by David. ‘That it is Messianic is a matter 
of spiritual interpretation; and, as Jesus here gives this doctrine 
the sanction of His authority, no loyal Christian will consider that 
he is free to question it. The authorship of the Psalm is a 
question of ¢ritcism; and nothing in the method of Christ’s 
teaching, or in the contents of Scripture generally, warrants us in 
believing that He here frees us from the duty of investigating a 
problem which is capable of being solved by our own industry 
and acuteness. We have no right to expect that Scripture will 
save us from the discipline of patient research by supplying. us 
with infallible answers to questions of history, chronology, geology, 
and the like. _ 


The last word has not yet been spoken as to the authorship of Ps. cx.; but 
it is a mistake to maintain that Jesus has decided the question. There is 
nothing antecedently incredible in the hypothesis that in such matters, as in 
other details of human information, He condescended not to know more than 
His contemporaries, and that He therefore believed what He had been taught 
in the school and in the synagogue (see footnote, p. 124). Nor ought we 


XX. 42-44] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 473 


summarily to dismiss the suggestion that, although He knew that the Psalm 
was sot written by David, He yet abstained from challenging beliefs respect- 
ing matters of fact, because the premature and violent correction of such beliefs 
would have been more harmful] to His work than their undisturbed continuance 
would be. In this, as in many things, the correction of erroneous opinion 
might well be left to time. But this suggestion is less satisfactory than the 
other hypothesis. It should be noticed that, while Jesus affirms both the 
inspiration (Mt. Mk.) and the Messianic character (Mt. Mk. Lk.) of Ps. cx., 
yet the argumentative question with which He concludes need not be under- 
stood as asserting that David is the author of it, although it seems to imply 
this. It may mean no more than that the scribes have not fairly faced what 
their own principles involve. Here is a problem, with which they ought to 
be quite familiar, and of which they ought to be able to givea solution. It is 
their position, and not His, that is open to criticism. The question, ‘‘ Why 
callest thou Me good?” appears to serve a similar purpose. It seems to imply 
that Christ is not to be called good in the sense that God is called good (Mk. 
x. 18). But it need mean no more than that the young man who addressed 
esus as ‘Good Master” ought to reflect as to the significance of such 
ge before making use of it.? 


44, xal mas adroit vids éotww; De Wette and Strauss both point 
out that this question must imply either (1) that the Messiah is zo? 
the Son of David, or (2) that the inspired Psalmist teaches that the 
Messiah is no mere political deliverer. Strauss, with Schenkel and 
Volkmar, prefers the former alternative.* But it is incredible that, 
even if Jesus were a mere buman teacher, He would thus gratuit- 
ously have contradicted the express utterances of Scripture (2 Sam. 
vii. 8—29 ; Is. ix. 5-7, xi. I-10; Jer. xxili. 5-8; Mic. v. 2) and the 
popular belief which was built upon them ; especially as this belief 
was a valuable help to His own work (xviii. 38; Mt. xv. 22, xii. 23, 
xxi. 9). Whereas, those who believe in His Divinity need have 
no difficulty in admitting, that, on a point which was no part of 
His teaching, Jesus might go all His human life without even rais- 
ing the question as to the truth of what was authoritatively taught 
about the authorship of this or that portion of Scripture. 

45-47. The Condemnation of the Scribes. Like Mk. xii. 
38-40, this seems to be a summary of the terrible indictment of 


1“ Tf I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them 
out?” (Lk. xi. 19) is possibly a similar case. It need not imply that Jewish 
exorcists had succeeded in casting out demons, but only that they were credited 
with no diabolical witchcraft in making the attempt. The question may mean 
no more than “ Judge Me on the same principles as you judge your own 
exorcists.” See Wright ad /oc. and xvi. 19. 

On Ps. cx. see Gore, Bampton Lectures, 1891, Lect. vii. sub fin. and 
note 55; Driver, Zut. to Lit. of O.T. p. 362 and note; Perowne, Psalms, ii. 
P 302, with the remarks of Thirlwall there quoted ; Meyer on Mt. xxii. 43; 

Weiss on Mt. xxii. 43 with note; Bishop Mylne, Jzdian Ch. Quar. Rev. Oct. 
1892, p. 486; Schwartzkopff, Konnte Jesus trren? 1896, pp. 21-36. 

2 Latham is of the same opinion from a different point of view. He thinks 
that Jesus repudiated the title ‘‘ Son of David,” as implying that the Redeemer 
of the world was a Jewzsh Messiah, with a title based on legitimacy and 
genealogy (Pastor Pastorum, p. 415). 


474 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 45-47, 


the hierarchy given at length in Mt. xxiii. Lk. perhaps did not 
know the longer report preserved by Mt. As he had already given 
an account of a similar discourse (xi. 39-52), there was the less 
need to give a full report here. 

45. *Axovovtos 8€ travrés tod Aaod. It is in the hearing of the 
multitude who had just been witnesses of the contest, in which the 
scribes had been so signally defeated, that Jesus utters His final 
condemnation of them. Comp. the ‘similar condemnation xii iy 
where as here we have zpocéyere dé, and see notes there. Comp. 
also the somewhat parallel passage in Ezek. xxii. 25: apralovres 
dpmdypara, | Yoxas xatecOiovres ev Swacreig, Kal Tyas AapPavovres 
kal ai xnpai cov edn OivOnoay €v péow cov. 

46. wepimatetv év otodais. Mk. also has this Hellenized ex- 
pression for tAarvvovow 7a puvdAaxTypia adrdv (Mt. xxiii. 5). The 
saying from déoracpors év Tats ayopais to Tots Seizvors is in all three 
accounts. Comp. xiv. 7, and see Wetst. on Mt. xxiii. 6, 7. 


Salmon quotes AV. of this and of Mk. xii. 38 in illustration of the variety 
which independent translation is sure to produce. Here, ‘‘ /ove to go in long 
clothing, and love sa/utatzons in the market places and the chief seats in the 
synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts, which for a pretence make lo 
prayers.” In Mark, ‘‘desire, walk, robes, greetings, markets, highest, chief 
show” for the words in italics, the Greek in all cases being the same. 

tév Behévtwv Tepiwatetv. This constr. of 0é\w = ‘like, love” ¢, enfin. 
occurs only here and Mk. xii. 38. It is perhaps an extension of the 

” Hebraistic 0éhw twa or 7s = “take delight in,” and in Mk. xii. 38 an acc. in 
coupled with the infin. Comp. Mt. xxvii. 43, ix. 13; xii. 7; Heb. x. 5, 8. 
But Lk. separates the acc. from @eAdvrwy by inserting the more usual 
grotvTwv, Win. liv. 4, p. 587. What follows is common to all three 
accounts, See on xi, 43 and xiv, 7. 


47. ot KatecQiovci tas oikias tov xnpov. Comp. Mk. xii. 40; 
but this item in the condemnation is not found in the true text of 
Mt. xxiii. Probably wealthy widows are chiefly meant. They de- 
voured widows’ houses by accepting hospitality and rich presents 
from pious and weak women. Sexus muliebris ut ad superstitionem 
pronior ita magis patet ad eas fraudes (Grot.). They would find 
widows a specially easy prey, and their taking advantage of the 
defenceless aggravated their guilt. C’éfatent les Tartuffes de 
Pépoque (Godet). Josephus says of the Pharisees ofs trjxro 7 
youaixuviris (Ant. xvii. 2. 4). Comp. the cases of Fulvia (xviii. 3. 5) 
and of Helene (xx. 2. 5) as instances of devout and benevolent 
women. ‘The wife of Pheroras, brother of Herod the Great, paid 
the fines of thousands of Pharisees who had been fined for refusing 
to swear loyalty to Cesar (xvii. 2. 4). The Talmud gives evidence 
of the plundering of widows. Jnter plagas que a Phariseis pro- 
veniunt hxc etiam est. Est gut consultat cum orphanis, ut alimenta 
viduex eripiat (Sota Hieros. f. 20. 1, Schoettg. i: 199) Ofa 
plundered widow R. Eleazar says, Plaga Phariseorum tetigit illam, 


XX. 47-XXI.8.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 475 


Ajpipovrat wepicadtepov Kpipa. The “more abundant” may be 
understood in two ways: (1) in proportion to the high estimation 
in which they were held in this world; or (2) in proportion to the 
hypocrisy which makes a trade of religion (Gould). Qui male 
agit, gudicatur. Qui bono abutitur ad malum ornandum, magis 
judicatur (Beng.). For \jpyopor kpipa comp. Rom. xiii. 2; Jas. 
iii. 1 ; and for meptcodtepov see on vii. 26. 

XXI. 1-4. The Widow’s Mites. Mk. xii. 41-44. The incident 
is not recorded by Mt. The saying respecting “ widows’ houses” 
might lead to the preservation of this narrative. Mk. and Lk. give 
both, Mt. neither. 

1. "AvaBdépas. Mk. has xaficas. The long discussions had 
wearied Him, and He had been sitting with downcast or closed 
eyes. 

‘ eidey tods BddAovtas ... mAouclous. Either, “He saw the 
rich who were casting,” etc. Or, “ He saw those who were casting 
. . » Tich people.” The former is better. In either case the im- 
perf. part. expresses what was continually going on: vidit eos gui 
mittebant munera sua in gazophylacium divites (Vulg.). 

76 yalopuddxiov. We are not sure that there was a separate 
building called the Treasury. But the thirteen trumpet-mouthed 
boxes which stood in the spacious Court of the Women appear 
to have been known as the Treasury. These Skhofaroth or 
“trumpets” were each of them inscribed with the purpose to 
which the money put into them was to be devoted. See Edersh. 
The Temple, p. 26. Besides these there was the strong-room whither 
their contents were taken from time to time. This, however, 
cannot be meant here. Comp. Jn. viii. 20. 


Both in LXX and in Josephus we find sometimes 7a yatoduvAdxia (Neh. 
x. 38, xiii. 9; B. J. v. 5. 2, vi. 5. 2), sometimes 7d yafopuAdkiov (2 Kings 
xxill. 11; 1 Mac. xiv. 29; Azé, xix. 6. 1): and we cannot say that there is 
any difference of meaning. 


2. wevixpdvy. Exod. xxii. 25; Prov. xxviii. 15, xxix. 7; but 
nowhere else in N.T. Vulg. and 1 have pauperculam: see also 
Vulg. of Is. Ixvi. 2. Note the teva. 

hevrTé& So. See on xil. 59. The exact amount would not be 
visible from a distance. Jesus knew this, as He knew that it was 
all that she had, supernaturally. It was not lawful to offer less than 
two ferutahs or mites. This was therefore the smallest offering 
ever made by anyone; so that Bengel’s remark on the two mites 
is out of place: guorum unum vidua retinere potuit. She could 
have kept doth. 

3. “Adn%as Adyw Syiv. Introduces something contrary to the 
usual view. Here, as in ix. 27 and xii. 44, Lk. has dA70Gs, 
where Mk. or Mt. has apyv. 


476 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXL 3-5. 


mhetov mévtav. Von modo proportione geometrita, sed animo, 
quem spectabat Dominus (Beng.). 


For m)etov (AB T'A AIl), which is supported by Aeov (8), Tisch. prefers 
mAelw (DQ X), which is supported by w)clova (L). Orig. has aAciov several 
times. 


4. mdvtes yap otro. Pointing to those of them who were still 
in sight. 
A eis Ta SGpa. “ Unto the gifts,” which were already in the 

oxes. 

€k Tod botepypatos. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 14, xi. 9; Judg. xix. 20; 
Ps, xxxili. 10. Whereas they had more than they needed for their 
wants, she had less: they had a surplus, and she a defiait. Yet 
out of this deficient store she gave,—gave all she had. 


The Latin Versions vary much in rendering both expressions: de exuper- 
antia (s), de co quod superfuit zllis (e), de quo super zllis fuct (a), ex eo quod 
abundavit tllis (f), ex abundant (Vulg.): de exiguttate sua (a), de tnopia sua 
(er), de minimo suo (d), ex co guod deest zi (f Vulg.). 


mdvta tov Biov. All that she had to support her at that time: 
comp. Vili. 43, xv. 12, 30; Cant. viii. 7; Soph. Phil. 933, 1283. 

5-36. The destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem fore- 
told. Mt. xxiv. 1-36; Mk. xili. 1-32. The section falls into 
three divisions: the Occasion of the Prophecy (5-7), the Prophecy 
(8-28), the Exhortation to Vigilance based on the Parable of the 
Fig Tree (29-36). Edersheim has shown in detail how different 
contemporary Jewish opinion respecting the end of the world was 
from what is contained in this prediction, and therefore how unten- 
able is the hypothesis that we have here only a reflexion of ordinary 
Jewish tradition (Z. & TZ. ii. pp. 434-445). 

5-7. Lk. gives no indication of time or place. Mk. and Mt. 
tell us that it was as Jesus was leaving the precincts that the remark 
of the disciples was made. The discourse as to the comparative 
merits of the offerings made in the Temple would easily lead on to 
thoughts respecting the magnificence of the temple itself and of 
the votive gifts which it received. 

5. tiwwv Aeysvtav. Mt. and Mk. tell us that these were 
disciples. 


Here again Cod. Bezae has a reproduction of the gen. abs. in Latin, 
quorundam dicentium: comp. ver. 26. 


AiBorg Kadois. Some of the stones of the substructure were 
enormous. The colurns of the cloister or portico were monoliths 
_of marble over forty feet high. See Josephus, whose account 
should be read in full (2.7. v. 5), Tacitus (#s¢. v. 12), Milman 
(Hist. of the Jews, ii. bk. xvi. p. 332), Edersheim (Zempée, p. 21), 
Renan (V de/. p. 210). “It is almost impossible to realise the 


XXI. 5-7.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 477 


effect which would be produced by a building longer and higher 
than York Cathedral, standing on a solid mass of masonry almost 
equal in height to the tallest of our church spires” (Wilson, Recovery 
of Jerusalem, p. 9). 

éva?jpacwv. Mt. and Mk. say nothing about the rich offerings, 
which were many and various, from princes and private individuals 
(2 Mac. iii. 2-7): e.g. the golden vine of Herod, with bunches as 
tall asa man (Jos. B. /. v. 5. 4; Ant. xv. 11. 3: comp. xvii. 6. 3; 
XViii. 3. 5, xix. 6. 1). Ji/ic immense opulentiz templum (Tact. Hist. 
v. 8.1). For dva$yya comp. 2 Mac. ix. 16; 3 Mac. ili. 17; Hat. 
i. 183. 6. Here only in N.T. 


On the relation between dvd@nua and dvd@eua see Ellicott and Lft. on 
Gal. i. 8; Trench, Syz. v. ; Cremer, Lex. p. 547. In MSS. the two words 
are often confounded. Here § AD X have dva@éuacw, which Tisch. adopts. 

6. tatta & Gewpeite. Wom. pendens: comp. Mt. x. 14, xii. 36; Jn. 
vi. 39, Vii. 38, xv. 2, xvii. 2; Acts vil. 40. 

éXevoovtTat Hepat. ‘* Days will come”: no article. Comp. v. 35, 
XVii. 22, xix. 43, XXiii., 29. 


odk ddeOycerar AtOos eri A(Pw. A strange prediction to those 
who had been expecting that the Messianic Kingdom would imme- 
diately begin, and that Jerusalem would be the centre of it. 
Respecting the completeness of the fulfilment of this prediction see 
Stanley, Szm. & Pal. p. 183; Robinson, es. in Pal. i. p. 295. 

7. Just as Lk. omits the fact that the remark about the glorious 
buildings was made as Jesus was leaving the temple (ver. 5), so he 
omits the fact that this question was asked while Jesus was sitting 
on the Mount of Olives. Mt. knows that it was “the disciples” 
who asked ; but the interpreter of Peter knows that Peter, James, 
John, and Andrew were the enquirers. Both state that the question 
was asked kar’ id/av. 

mote ovv tata éotat; They accept the prediction without 
question, and ask as to the date, respecting which Christ gives 
them no answer: comp. xiil. 23, 24, xvil. 20. Perhaps they con- 
sidered that this temple was to be destroyed to make room for 
one more worthy of the Kingdom. Their second question, ri 76 
onpetov, shows that they expect to live to see the preparatory 
catastrophe. 

8-28. The Prophecy. The Troubles which will follow the 
Departure of Christ—False Christs, Wars, Persecutions (8-19). 
The Destruction of Jerusalem (20-24). The Signs of the Return 
of the Son of Man (25-28). The record of the prediction in Mt. 
and Mk. is similarly arranged. But in all three records the out- 
lines of the two main events, with their signs, cannot always be 
disentangled. Some of the utterances clearly point to the Destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem; others equally clearly to the Return of the 
Christ. But there are some which might apply to either or both; 


478 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 8-11 


and we, who stand between the two, cannot be sure which one, if 
only one, is intended. In its application to the lives of the hearers 
each event taught a similar truth, and conveyed a similar warning ; 
and therefore a clearly cut distinction between them was as little 
needed as an exact statement of date. Some of the early com- 
mentators held that the whole of the prophecy refers to the end of 
the world without including the fall of Jerusalem. 

8. mAavnOyte. “Be led astray.” The verb is used nowhere 
else in Lk. It implies no mere mistake, but fundamental departure 
from the truth: Jn. vii. 47; 1 Jn. i. 8, ii. 26, iii. 7; Rev. ii. 20, 
xli. 9, XX. 3-10, etc. ‘“‘Deceive” (AV.) would rather be amardv 
(Jas. i. 26: comp. 1 Cor. ili. 18; Gal. vi. 3). 

émt 7@ dvdpatt pov. Christ’s name will be the dasés of their 
claim. We know of no false Messiahs between the Ascension and 
the fall of Jerusalem. Theudas (Acts v. 36), Simon Magus (Acts 
viii. 9), the Egyptian (Acts xxi. 38) do not seem to have come 
forward as Messiahs. Dositheus, Simon Magus, and Menander 
might be counted among the “ many antichrists” of 1 Jn. ii. 18, 
but not as false Christs. We seem, therefore, at the outset to have 
a sign which refers rather to Christ’s return than to the destruction 
of Jerusalem. 

9. dxatactacias. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 5, xii. 20; 
Jas. iii. 16; Prov. xxvi. 28; Tob. iv. 13. In Josephus we have 
abundant evidence of such things. ‘Tacitus says of this period— 
opimum casibus, atrox prelits, discors seditionibus, ipsd etiam pace 
sevum. Quatuor Principes ferro interemptt. Trina bella civilia, 
plura externa ac plerumque permixta (Hist. i. 2. 1).—wronOijrte. 
Only here and xxiv. 37: Mt. and Mk. have OpoetoGe. 

Set. It is so ordered by God: comp. xiii. 33, xvii. 25, xix. 5, 
xxiv. 7, 26, 44, 46. 

otk e0éws. First, with emphasis: “Not immediately is the 
end.” For “by-and-by” as a translation of ed#éws see on xvii. 7. 
By 18 7éAos is not meant 76 téAos ddivwv (comp. Mt. xxiv. 8), but 
mavtwv To TéAos (1 Pet. iv. 7), the end of the world and the coming 
of the Son of Man. 

10. Téte édeyev adtots. A new introduction to mark a solemn 
utterance. The tore with é\eyey is unusual; but that does not 
make the combination of rére with éyepOyoerat (Beza, Casaubon, 
Hahn) probable. 


D, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. ade ff,ilr omit the words, 


éyepOyoetar €Ovos én €Ovos. Only here and in the parallels is 
this use of éyetpeo('o. eri twa found in N.T. Comp. éreyep6y- 
covrat Aiyvrruon er Aiyumrious . . . [ereyepOjoerac] woAus emt rod 
Kat vouos emt vopov (Is. xix. 2). 


11. After describing the general political disturbances which 


XXI. 11-15.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 479 


shall precede the end, Jesus mentions four disturbances of nature 
which shall also form a prelude: earthquakes, famines, pestilences, 
and terrible phenomena in the heaven. Lk. alone mentions the 
Aorpot (elsewhere in a metaphorical sense: Acts xxiv. 5; Prov. 
xxi. 24; Ps. i. 1; 1 Mac. xv. 21). Lk. alone also mentions the 
hoBnOpa te kat onpeia. On the prodigies which preceded the 
capture of Jerusalem see Jos. B. /. vi. 5. 3; Tac. Hist. v. 13. 


According to the better text (NBL, Aegyptt. Arm. Aeth.) card rézovus 
belongs to Aowwol kal Arwol, not (as in Mk.) to cecopol weyddot (A D, Latt.). 
Syr-Sin. has ‘‘in divers places” with both. Many authorities (§ ADL, de 
Boh.) have Awol x. Aomwol. For the paronomasta comp. fwhv kal mvojv (Acts 
xvii. 25); ywwones & dvaywdoxes (Acts viii. 30); uabev ad’ dv érabey 
(Heb. v. 8); évaluny in "Ovjomos (Philem. 20); rivés TSv KAddwy ébexAdo- 
@ycav (Rom. xi. 17). Some Latin, Syriac, and Aethiopic authorities here 
insert e¢ hzemes tempestates, ‘‘ probably from an extraneous source written or 
oral” (WH. ii. App. p. 63). Comp. the addition of kal rapaxal in Mt. 
xiii, 8. And as regards the terrors generally comp. 4 Esdr. v. 4-10. 


12-19. Calamities specially affecting the Disciples; Persecu- 
tion and Treachery. While Lk. and Mk. emphasize the persecu- 
tion that will come from the Jews, Mt. seems almost to confine it 
to the Gentiles (but see Mt. x. 17-19). Jn. also records that 
Christ foretold persecution (xv. 18-21), and in particular from the 
Jews (xvi. 2, 3). The Acts may supply abundant illustrations. 
Note that Lk. has nothing about “the Gospel being preached ¢o 
all the nations” (Mk. xili. 10; Mt. xxiv. 14). Would he have 
omitted this, if either of those documents was before him? 

12. mpd 8€ toUtwy. The prep. is certainly used of time, and 
not of superiority in magnitude. Persecutions are among the first 
things to be expected. The tendency of Mt. to slur the misdeeds 
of the Jews is conspicuous here. While Lk. mentions tas ovva- 
yoyds and Mk. adds cvvédpia, Mt. has the vague term @Aiuw. 

13. dmoBycetar Gpiv cis paptipiov. “The result to you will be 
that your sufferings will be for a testimony.” A testimony to 
what? Not to the innocence of the persecuted, which is not the 
point: and they were commonly condemned as guilty. Possibly 
to their loyalty: comp. Phil. 1. 19. More probably to the truth of 
the Gospel, For the verb comp. Job xiii. 16; 2 Mac. ix, 24. 

14, mpopederGv. The regular word for conning over a speech: 
here only in N.T. Mk. has the less classical rpoyepysvav. Comp. 
X. I9, 20, and see on xii. 11. Hahn would make the word mean 
anxiety about the resu/t of the defence. 

15. éyo ydép. With emphasis: “all of that will be JZ care.” 
In the parallel assurances in Mt. x. 20 and Mk. xiii. 11 it is the help 
of the Holy Spirit that is promised. In form this verse is peculiar 
to Lk. By oroyva is meant the power of speech; by codia the 
choice of matter and form. Comp. eyo dvoifw 7d ordya cov 


480 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 15-19, 


(Exod. iv. 12), and dédwxa rods Adyous pou cis 7d oTdpa cov (Jer. 
i. 9). 

avtictyvat. This refers to copia (Acts vi. 10) as ayreurety to 
oropa. Their opponents will find no words in which to answer, 
and will be unable to refute what the disciples have advanced. Vos 
ad certamen acceditis, sed ego prelior. Vos verba editis, sed ego sum 
gui loguor (Bede). Quid: sapientius et tncontradicibilius confessione 
simplici et exserta in martyris nomine cum Deo invalescentis (Tert. 
Adv. Marc. iv. 39. 20). Holtzmann would have it that these 
verses (12-15) are the composition of the Evangelist with definite 
reference to the sufferings of S. Paul and S. Stephen. 

16. kal bmd yovéwy. “ Hven by parents” (RV.) rather than 
“doth by parents” (AV.). Cov. also has “even.” Comp. xii. 52, 
53; Mt. x. 35 for similar predictions of discord in families to be 
produced by the Gospel. 

Bavatdcouow. This verb is in all three accounts. It cannot 
be watered down to mean “put in danger of death” (Volkmar): 
ver. 18 does not require this evasion. Comp. é& atr&v amoxreveite 
<al oravpwoere (Mt. xxiii. 34) and é& airdy dzoxrevotow (Lk. 
xl. 49). Here é€ éuav naturally means “some of you Apostles.” 
Three of the four who heard these words—James, Peter, and 
Andrew—suffered a martyr’s death. 

17. kat écecbe picovpevor. This verse is found in the same 
form in all three, excepting that Mt. inserts trav cOvav after rdvrwv, 
which is in harmony with his omitting synagogues as centres of 
persecution (xxiv. 9). For the paraphrastic future see on i. 20. 

18. kat Opié... od ph dméAnta. Peculiar to Lk. This 
proverbial expression of great security must here be understood 
spiritually ; for it has just been declared (ver. 16) that some z2// 
be put to death. ‘Your souls will be absolutely safe; your 
eternal welfare shall in nowise suffer” (Mey. Weiss, Nosg.). Jn. 
x. 28 is in substance closely parallel. This is more satisfactory 
than to take it literally and supply s¢xe premio, ante tempus 
(Beng.); or supply from Mt. x. 29 dvev tov ratpos tuav (Hahn). 
The proverb is used of physical preservation, Acts xxvii. 34; 
1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kings i. 52. 

19, év TH Sropov budv. “In your endurance” of suffering 
without giving way; whereas paxpofvpia is patience of injuries 
without paying back. See Trench, Syz. liii.; Lft. on Col. i. 11, 
ili. 12 ; Wsctt. on Heb. vi. 12. The Latin Versions often confuse 
the two words. 

Here we have fatientia (ef ff,iqrs Vulg.), colerantia (a), suferentza (d). 
These three translations are found also viii. 15. In no other Gospel does 
brouovy occur ; and in no Gospel does waxpo@vyla occur. 


ktTyoece Tas Wuxds buoy. “ Ye shall wiz your suuls,” uu “ your 


XXL 19-21.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 451 


lives.” This confirms the interpretation given above of ver. 18. 
There the loss of eternal salvation is spoken of as death. Here 
the gaining of it is called winning one’s life. See on ix. 25 and 
xvii. 33- In Mt. (xxiv. 13, x. 22) and Mk. (xiii. 13) this saying is 
represented by “He that endureth (tzopetvas) to the end, the 
same shall be saved.” Neither Lk. nor Jn. use izopévew in this 
sense. 


The reading is uncertain as regards the verb, AB some cursives, Latt. 
Syrr. Arm. Aeth. and best MSS. of Boh., Tert. Orig. support xrjcecde, 
which is adopted by Treg. WH. RV. and Weiss; whileX DL RXTA etc., 
some MSS. of Boh., Const-Apost. Bas. support xrjcac@e, which is adopted 
by Tisch. Neither reading justifies ‘‘ Jossess your souls,” a meaning confined 
to the perf. Cov. has ‘‘ holde fast”; but nearly all others have ‘‘ possess,” 
following in verb, though not in tense, the Zosszdedztés of Vulg. Other Lat. 
texts have adguzretts (c ff,1) or adguzrzte (di). See last note on xviii. 12. 


20-24. The Destruction of Jerusalem. 

20. xuxoupévny. “ Being compassed”: when the process was 
completed it would be too late; comp. Heb. xi. 30. No English 
Version preserves this distinction: but Vulg. has wideritis circum- 
dari, not circumdatam (ae). Instead of this Mt. and Mk. have 
‘the abomination of desolation,” etc. 

4 épypwots. The word is freq. in LXX, but in N.T. occurs 
only here and the parallels. The disciples had been expecting an 
immediate glorification of Jerusalem as the seat of the Messianic 
Kingdom. It is the desolation of Jerusalem that is really near at 
hand. 

21, téte . . . Ta Spy. Verbatim the same in all three. What 
follows, to the end of ver. 22, is peculiar to Lk. By “ the.moun- 
tains” is meant the mountainous parts of Judza: but é péow 
airs (see on vill. 7) refers, like eis airyy, not to Judza, but to 
Jerusalem. 

xadpats. ‘“*Land-estates” (xii. 16), “country” as opposed to 
the town. See Blass on Acts viii. 1. The Jews who fled from 
the country into Jerusalem for safety greatly increased the miseries 
of the siege. It is probably to this prophecy that Eusebius refers 
when he speaks of “the people of the Church in Jerusalem being 
commanded to leave and dwell in a city of Perza called Pella, in 
accordance with a certain oracle which was uttered before the war 
to the approved men there by way of revelation” (#7. £. iii. 5. 3). 
The flight to Pella ¢//ustrates the prophecy; but we need not 
confine so general a warning to a single incident. It is important 
to note that the wording of the warning as recorded here has not 
been altered to suit this incident. Marcion omitted vz. 18, 21, 22. 


Vulg. pee —s Vet. are misleading in translating éy rais xdpais in 
regionibus. e Frag. Ambrcsiana (s) give more rightly zm agrv7s. Sse Old- 
Latin Biblical Texts, ti. p. 83. 


oI 


482 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 22-24, 


22. fpepar exdicyoews. Comp. LXX of Deut. xxxii. 35; Hos. 
ix. 7; Ecclus. v. 9. In what follows note the characteristic con- 
struction, and verb, and adjective. There is an abundance of 
such utterances throughout the O.T. Lev. xxvi. 31-33; Deut. 
XXVili. 49-57; 1 Kings ix. 6-9; Mic. iii. 12; Zech. xi. 6; Dan. 
ix. 26,27. The famous passage in Eus. HZ. £. ii. 23. 20 should 
be compared, in which (like Origen before him) he quotes as from 
Josephus words which are in no MS. of Josephus which is extant: 
“These things happened to the Jews to avenge (kar exdikyow) 
James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the 
Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a very just man.” 

23. odat ... tucpats. Verbatim the same in all three. For 
évdyxn Mt. and Mk. have Ads. In Job xv. 24 we have avayky 
kat O@Xiyus: comp. Job vii. 11, xviil. 14, xx. 22. In class. Grk. 
dvéykn rarely means “distress,” a meaning common in bibl. Grk. 
(1 Cor, vii. 26; 1 Thes. ii. 7; 2 Cor. vi. 4, xii. 105) Bsvevinonaes 
19, 28; Ps. Sol. v. 8). See small print on ver. 25. The meaning 
of ént tis yas is determined by 16 hag totrw. The. latter 
means the Jews, and therefore the former means Palestine (AV. 
RV.) and not the earth (Weiss). For the Divine épyy comp. 
1 Mac. i. 64, ii. 49; 2 Mac. v. 20; Ps. SoZ ii. 26, xvii. 14. The 
opyn is provoked by the people gué ¢antam gratiam calestem 
spreverit (Beng.). 

24. kal mecodvrat otdpat. paxatpys. This verse and the last 
words of ver. 22 are peculiar to Lk. Note the characteristic 
a7avta, paraphrastic future, and.aypt. The often repeated asser- 
tion of Josephus, that 1,100,000 perished in the siege and 97,000 
were carried into captivity (B. 7. vi. 9. 3) is quite incredible: they 
could not have found standing-ground within the walls. The 
sexcenta millia of Tacitus (sz. v. 13. 4), if taken literally, is far 
too many for the’ number of those besieged: but sexcenti need 
not mean more than “very many.” Perhaps 70,000 is an ample 
estimate. 


The ash é& orbuart paxalpas occurs Gen. xxxiv. 263 Jos. x. 28; év 


arbuart poudalas, Jos. vi. 21, vill. 24; év orduare Elpous, Jos. x. 30, 32, 35, ~ 


37, 39. The plur. o7éuara waxalpys is found Heb. xi. 34. In the best MSS. 
substantives in -pa form gen. and dat. in -pys and -py (WH. ii. App. p. 156). 


éorat matounévy. See oni. 20, and see also Burton, § 71. Plus 
sonat quam warnOnoera (Beng.): it expresses the permanent con- 
dition, Ja domination écrasante (Godet). Comp. the LXX of 
Zech. xii. 3, Ojoopar tHv “Iepoveadij. AiGov Kataratovpevoy macw 
tois €Oveow.! Jerusalem has more often been under the feet of 


1 This use of raréw, ‘*I tread,” as =xatamaréw, ‘‘I trample on,” is classical: 
Plat. Phedr. 248 A; Soph. 47. 1146; Ant. 745; Aristoph. Vesp. 377. The 
meaning is certainly not ‘shall be inhabited by” (Hahn), as in Is, xlii. 5. 
Comp. Rev. xi. 23 Ps. Sol. vii. 2, ii. 2. 


XXI. 24, 25.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 483 


Gentiles than in the hands of Christians. Romans, Saracens, 
Persians, and Turks have all trampled upon her in turn. 


The Latin Versions vary much: e7zt calcata (d 4), ertt zncalcata (e), erit 
tn concalcationem (a), concalcabitur (xr), calcabctur (Vulg.). 


dxptos. See on i. 20: dxpus ob is possibly correct Rom. xi. 25; 
Heb. iii. 13. ‘ 

katpot e0vav. As stated already, the whole of this verse is 
peculiar to Lk., and some have supposed that the last part of it is 
an addition made by him. It is not necessary to charge him with 
any such licence; although it is possible that oral tradition has 
here, as elsewhere, paraphrased and condensed what was said. 
The “seasons of the Gentiles” or “‘ opportunities of the Gentiles” 
cannot be interpreted with certainty. Either (1) Seasons for 
executing the Divine judgments; or (2) for lording it over Israel ; 
or (3) for existing as Gentiles; or (4) for themselves becoming 
subject to Divine judgments; or (5) Opportunities of turning to 
God ; or (6) of possessing the privileges which the Jews had for- 
feited. The first and last are best, and they are not mutually 
exclusive. Comp. dxpt ob 70 rAjpwua tay éOvdv eicéX\On (Rom. 
xi. 25), where the whole section is a comment on the promise 
that the punishment of Israel has a limit. The plur. xa:pof corre- 
sponds with the plur. évy: each nation has its xarpés: but comp. 
€ws tANpwHdow Katpol tod aidvos (Tob. xiv. 5), where the whole 
passage should be compared with this. 

25-28. The Signs of the Second Advent. Lk. here omits 
what is said about shortening the days and the appearance of 
impostors (Mt. xxiv. 22-26; Mk. xiii. 20-23). On the latter 
subject he has already recorded a warning (xvii. 23, 24). 

25. év HAiw kK. cekyvy k. Gotpors. ‘In sun and moon and 
stars.” In Mt. and Mk. the three words have the article. All 
English Versions prior to RV. wrongly insert the article here, Cov. 
with “sun,” the rest with all three words. Similar language is 
common in the Prophets: Is. xiii. 10; Ezek. xxxii. 7; Joel ii. 10, 
iii. 15: comp. Is. xxxiv. 4; Hag. li. 6, 21, etc. Such expressions 
indicate the perplexity and distress caused by violent changes: 
the very sources of light are cut off. To what extent they are to 
be understood literally cannot be determined: but it is quite out 
of place to introduce here the thought of Christ as the sun and the 
Church as the moon, as do Ambr. and Wordsw. ad Joc. (Migne, 
xv. 1813). The remainder of this verse and most of the next are 
peculiar to Lk. 


gvvoxy occurs only here and 2 Cor. ii. 4 in N.T.; but comp. viii. 45, 
xi. 45, xii, 50. In LXX it is found Judg. ii. 3; Job xxx. 3; Jer. lit. 5; 
Mic. v. 1. In Vulg. Jerome carelessly uses Jressura both for suvoy here 
and for dvdyxy in ver. 23; although Lat. Vet. distinguishes, with conpressia 


484 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXL 25-28, 


(a), confiictto (d), conclusio (e), or occursus (f) for cuvoxh, and mecessitas 
(ader) or pressura (f) for dvdyn. See small print on xix. 43. 


év Gmopia 7xods. All English Versions prior to RV. go astray 
here, but Wic. and Rhem. less than the rest, owing to the Vulgate: 
in terris pressura gentium pre confusione sonitus maris et fluctuum. 
Tertullian is better: im terra angustias nationum obstupescentium 
velut a sonitu maris jluctuantis (Adv. Mare. iv. 39). It is the 
nations who are “i perplexity af the resounding of sea and 
surge.” Figurative language of this kind is common in the 
Prophets: Is. xxviii. 2, xxix. 6, xxx. 30; Ezek. xxxviii. 22; Ps. 
xlii. 7, lxv. 7, xxxviii. 7. See Stanley, Jewish Church, i. p. 130. 


It is uncertain whether 7xous is to be accented jxois as from 7xe, or 
fxous as from 7xos (iv. 37; Heb. xii. 19; Acts ii. 2). See WH. ii. App. 
p- 158. The reading jxovcns (DI A ATI etc.) is a manifest correction: the 
evidence against it (§ ABCLM RX and Versions) is overwhelming. For 
the gen. after dzoplg, “ perplexity because of,” comp. karahéywy Tav ZkvOéwr 
Thy droplnv (Hdt. iv. 83. 1). The conjecture év daeplg is baseless, and gives 
an inferior meaning. 


26. dropuxdvtwv. “ Fainting, swooning,” as Hom. Od. xxiv. 348, 
rather than “expiring,” as Thuc. i. 134. 3; Soph. 47. 1031. 


The arescentibus of Lat. Vet. and Vulg. is remarkable; but a has a 
refrigescentibus and d has déefictentium.' Of these three words refrigescere 
best represents droyixew. But in LXX puyxew is used of drying in the sun 
or air: Num. xi. 32; 2 Sam. xvii. 19. Comp. tol 6’ lidpd darepixovro 
XITaver, ordvre worl mvoujv (Hom. //. xi. 621): ‘‘ They dried the sweat off 
their tunics.” Rhem. renders avescentzbus ‘* withering away.” Hobart claims 
both droyixew and mpocdoxla as medical (pp. 161, 166). But medical writers 
use dropixew of being chilled, not of swooning or expiring. He gives many 
instances from Galen of tpoodoxla (which occurs here and Acts xii. 10 only 
in N.T.) as denoting the expectation of an unfavourable result. For this use 
of dé see on xxiv. 4I. 

7] olxoupevy. See on iv. 5. 


ai Surdpers TOY odpavav cahevOjcovra, Comp. taxjoovrat macat 
al Suvdpets Tv otpav@v (Is. xxxiv. 4). The verb which Lk. sub- 
stitutes is one of which he is fond (vi. 38, 49, vii. 24; Acts ii. 25, 
iv. 31, xvi. 26, xvii. 13). By ai duvdyes 7. ovp. is meant, not the 
Angels (Euthym.), nor the cosmic powers which uphold the 
heavens (Mey. Oosterz.), but the heavenly bodies, the stars (De W. 
Holtz. Weiss, Hahn): comp. Is. xl. 26; Ps. xxxiii. 6. Evidently 
physical existences are meant. 

27. kal tote Spovrar. “Not 7/7 then shall ¢hey see.” Not 
éweoGe: there is perhaps a hint that those present will not live to 
see this. This verse is in ali three: comp. 1 Thes. iv. 16; 2 Thes. 
i. 7, ii. 8; Rev. i. 8, xix. 11-16. 

28. This word of comfort is given by Lk. alone. Only here in 


1 Deficientium hominum a timore: another eae of gen. abs. in 
Latin. Comp. iii. 15, ix. 43, xix. II, xxi. 5, xxiv. 36, 4I. 


XXI. 28-33.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 485 


N.T. is dvax’rrew used of being elated after sorrow. Comp. Job 
x. 15, and contrast Lk. xiii, 11; Jn. villi. 7, 10. The disciples 
present are regarded as representatives of believers generally. 
Only those who witness the signs can actually fulfil this injunction. 

GarodUtpwots. At the Second Advent. Here the word means 
little more than “release” or “deliverance,” without any idea of 
“ransom” (Auvrpov). See Sanday on Rom. ili. 24 and Wsctt. 
Heb. pp. 295-297- 

29-33. The Parable of the Fig Tree. Mt. xxiv. 32-35; Mk. 
xili, 28-32. 

29. Kat eimev. This marks the resumption of the discourse 
after a pause: comp. xi. 5. More often Lk. uses «izev 8€ or 
edeyev 5€: xiv. 12, xx. 41, etc. For etwev mapaBodyy see on Vi. 39. 
Lk. alone makes the addition kai wavra 7a dévdpa: see on vi. 30 
and vii. 35. Writing for Gentiles, Lk. preserves words which cover 
those to whom fig trees are unknown. 


830. mpoBddwowv. Here only without acc. We must understand 7a 
gira. In Jos. Ant. iv. 8. 19 xaprdéy is added: comp. Acts xix. 33. 

ad éavtav yiweoKete. ‘* Of your own selves ye recognize: ” z.¢. with- 
out being told. For éavrod, -Gv, of the 2nd pers. comp. xii. I, 33, Xvi. 9, 15, 
xvii. 3, 14, xxii. 17, xxiii. 28. It occurs in class. Grk. where no ambiguity 
is involved. 

There is no justification for rendering @épos ‘‘ harvest,” which would be 
Oepiopés (x. 2). In N.T. @épos occurs only in this parable, 


82. 4 yeved aitn. This cannot well mean anything but se 
generation living when these words were spoken: vii. 31, xi. 29- 
32, 50, 51, xvii. 25; Mt. xi. 16, etc. The reference, therefore, is 
to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of 
the world. To make 7 yeved avrn mean the Jewish race, or the 
generation contemporaneous with the beginning of the signs, is not 
satisfactory. See on ix. 27, where, as here, the coming of the 
Kingdom of God seems to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. 

83. 6 odpavds Kai i yq. Comp. 2 Pet. ill. 10; Heb. i. 11, 12; 
Rey. xx. II, xxl. 1; Ps. cil. 26; Is. li. 6. A time will come 
when everything material will cease to exist; but Christ’s words 
will ever hold good. The prophecy just uttered is specially 
meant ; but all His sayings are included. Comp. ovdé yap rapyAGev 
aa airav Adyos (Addit. Esth. x. 5). 


ov 2} WapeNevoovTar. So also in Mk. xiii. 31; but in Mt. xxiv. 35 
mwapé\Owowv, which A R X etc. read here and AC D X etc. read in Mk. As 
the subj. is the usual constr. in N.T. after od uj, copyists often corrected the 
fut. indic. to aor. subj. Comp. Mk. xiv. 31; Mt. xv. 5; Gal. iv. 30; Heb. 
x. 17, etc. The Old Latin MSS. used by Jerome seem here to have read 
transient . . . tramszent. Our best MSS. of the Vulgate read ¢ranszbunt 
. . . transient, Jerome may have forgotten to correct the second ¢ramsdent 
into transzbunt: or he may have wished to mark the difference between 
Tapedevoovras and zapéAQwow. Cod. Brix. with the Book of Dimma and 


486 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 83, 34. 


some other authorities has transcbunt ... preeieribunt. See Hermathena, 
No. xix. p. 386. 


34-36. Concluding Warning as to the Necessity of Ceaseless 
Vigilance. Comp. Mt. xxv. 13-15; Mk. xiii. 33-37. The form 
of this warning differs considerably in the three Gospels. Not 
many words are common to any two of them; and very few are 
common to all three. It should be noted that here as elsewhere 
(x. 7=1 Tim. v. 18, xxiv. 34=1 Cor. xv. 5), Lk. in differing from 
Mt. and Mk. agrees with S. Paul. Comp. with this 1 Thes. v. 3. 
See Lft. Zs. p. 72. 

84. For mpocéyete S€ Eautots see on ver. 29 and xii. 1; and for 
BapynPaow see on 1x. 32. 

kperaddy. Not “surfeiting,” but the nausea which follows a 
debauch: cragu/a. Here only in bibl. Grk. For this and pé6y 
(Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 21) see Trench, Sya. lxi.; and for the 
orthography see WH. ii. App. p. 151. 


pepluvars Buotixats. The adj. occurs 1 Cor. vi. 3, 4: but is not found 
in LXX, nor earlier than Aristotle. Comp. mpds ras Biwrixds xpelas danperew 
(Philo, Vzt. Mo. iii. 18). 

The remarkable rendering sozzs for uepluvarts in Cod. Bezae has long 
attracted attention, and has been regarded by some as a manifest Gallicism. 
It is confidently connected with the French sozzs. But the connexion is not 
certain. The word may be a form of somnzzs, and the transition from “‘ dis- 
turbing dreams” to “‘ perplexities” and ‘‘cares” would not be difficult. The 
word occurs once in the St. Gall MS. of the Sortes, and sonzarz occurs four 
times. It was therefore a word which was established in use early in the 
sixth century. Whether it is original in the text of D, or is a later substitu- 
tion, is much debated. Here other renderings are sol/cztudinibus (ae), 
cogitatzonzbus (b f), curzs (Tert. Vulg.). The prevalent Old Latin rendering 
was sollicetudines (abd f) both in vill. 14 and Mt. xiii. 22 (comp. Mk. iv. 19) ; 
and the translator of Irenzeus has sol//zcztudinibus here. See Scrivener, 
Codex Bezae, pp. xliv, xlv. Rendel Harris, p. 26; and an excellent review 
in the Guardian, May 18, 1892, p. 743. 

édviSios. Here, but not 1 Thes. v. 3 or Wisd. xvii. 14, this form is best 
attested: WH. Intr. 309, App. 151. The Latin renderings are repentaneus 
(a), subztaneus (de), repentena (f Vulg.). 


 tipépa éxetvy. This is the one expression which in this 
section is common to all three accounts. Comp. x. 12, xvil. 31. 
The day of the Messiah’s return is meant. 


@s mayts. According to the best authorities (§ BDL, abce ffi Boh., 
Tert.) these words belong to what precedes, and the yap follows émeweev- 
cerat, not mayls. The whole recalls @é80s kai Bd@uvos cal rayls ép’ juds 
Tovs évorxodbvras éml THs ys (Is. xxiv. 17). The resemblance between the 
passages, and the fact that émeweAevoerat suits the notion of a mayls 
( noose” or ‘‘lasso”’), accounts for the transposition of the ydp. Originally 
a mayis (riyyvupn) is that which ZoZ/s fast: Ps. xci. 3; Prov. vii. 23; Eccles. 
ix. 12. Here most Latin texts have /agueus, but Cod. Palat. has meus. 
ctpula. 

35-36. Note the characteristic repetition of ras. 


XXI. 35, 86.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 487 


85. mdons ths yas. Not the land of the Jews only. Possibly 
xaOnpévous indicates that, as at the flood, and at Belshazzar’s 
feast, people are sitting at ease, eating and drinking, etc. (xvii. 27): 
but it need not mean more than inhabiting. Comp. pdxarpay eyo 
KaA® emt mévras tovs Kabnpévous ext THs yys (Jer. xxv. 29). For 
émi mpoo. 7. t. yijs comp. 2 Sam. xviii. 8. The phrase is Hebraistic. 

86. dypumveire 5é. Comp. Eph. vi. 18; Heb. xiii. 17; 
2 Sam. xii. 21; Ps, cxxvi. 1; Prov. viii. 34. 


The o#v (ACR, bcfi,, Syrr. Aeth. Arm.) for 6¢(% BD, ade) probably 
comes from Mt. xxv. 13 and Mk, xiii. 35. 


év wavtl koipO. xviii. 1 and 1 Thes. v.17 are in favour of 
taking these words with Seduevor (Wic. Gen. Rhem. AV.) rather 
than with dypumvecire (Tyn. Cov. Cran. RV.). For similar questions 
comp. ix. 17, 18, 57, x. 18, xi. 39, etc. 


Katicxvonte. This is the reading of § BL X 33, Aegyptt. Aeth. and is 
adopted by the best editors. It properly means ‘‘ prevail against” (Mt. 
xvi. 18; Jer. xv, 18; 2 Chron. vili. 3; comp. Lk. xxiii. 23; Is. xxil. 43 
Wisd. xvii. 5). The xaragww0fre of ACDR, Latt. Syrr. Arm., Tert. 
perhaps comes from xx. 35. 

ota0qvat. ‘*To hold your place,” comp. Tére oryjoera év mappyola 
mwoNdq 6 dlkatos (Wisd. v. 1). It is clear from xi. 18, xviii. 11, 40, xix. 8; 
Acts ii. 14, v. 20, xi. 13, xvii. 22, xxv. 18, xxvii. 21, etc., that ora@jvar is 
not to be taken passively of dezng placed by the Angels (Mt. xxiv. 31). 
Comp. ris divarat oradjvac; (Rev. vi. 17). For the opposite of ora@jvat 
see xxiii, 30; Rev. vi. 16: comp. I Jn. ii. 28. 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JESUS. 


Hase (Gesch. Jesu, § 97), Colani (/. C. et les croyances messianiques de som 
temps), and others think that Jesus had penetration enough to foresee and pre- 
dict the destruction of Jerusalem, but they cannot believe that He was such a 
fanatic as to foretell that He would return in glory and judge the world. Hence 
they conclude that these predictions about the Pavzsza were never uttered by 
Him. Keim sees that Mk. xiii. 32 cannot be an invention (/es. of Naz. v. 
p- 241): in some shape or other Jesus must have foretold His glorious Return. 
Therefore this eschatological discourse is based upon some genuine utterances of 
Jesus ; but has been expanded into an apocalyptic poem with the help of other 
material. Both Keim and some of those who deny the authenticity of any pre- 
diction of Christ’s Return assume the existence of an apocalypse by some Jewish 
Christian as the source from which large portions of this discourse are taken. 
Weizsicker holds that the apocalypse was Jewish, and was taken from a lost 
section of the Book of Enoch. Weiffenbach, followed by Wendt and Vischer, 
upholds the theory of a Jewish-Christian original. 

But did this spurious apocalypse, the existence of which is pure conjecture, 
also supply Lk. with what he has recorded xi. 49-51, xiii, 23-27, 35, xvii. 23, 
37, xvill. 8, xix. 15, 43, xx. 16? Did it supply Mt. with what he has recorded 
Vil. 22, xX. 23, xix. 28, xxi. 44, xxil. 7, xxv. 31, xxvi. 64? Mk. also with the 
parallels to these passages? That all three derived these utterances from 
Apostolic tradition is credible. Is it credible that a writing otherwise unknown 
and by an unknown author should have had such enormous influence? And its 
influence does not end with the three Evangelists. It has contzibuted largely 


488 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 87, 88. 


to the Epistles of S. Paul, especially to the very earliest of them. Comp. 
1 Thes. ii. 16, iv. 16, 17, v. I-33; 2 Thes. ii, 1-12. And it would seem to 
have influenced much of the imagery in Revelation, which foretells wars, 
famine, pestilence, and persecution (vi. 4, 5, 8, 9), and the Return of the 
Savieur accompanied by the armies of heaven (xix. 11-16). This supposed 
fictitious apocalypse is assigned to A.D. 68, or thereabouts; and therefore long 
after the Pauline Epistles were written. Apostolic tradition, which is known to 
have existed, is a far safer hypothesis. See Godet, ad doc. (ii. pp. 430 ff.), whose 
remarks have been freely used in this note. See also Briggs, The Messiah o 
the Gospels, T. &. T. Clark, 1894, ch. iv. where this ‘‘ Apocalypse of Jesus” 
is critically discussed, with special reference to the theory of Weiffenbach and 
others that the assumed Jewish-Christian apocalypse consisted of these three 
portions :—(a) the dpx? wdlywy, Mk. xiii. 7, 8=Mt. xxiv. 6-8=Lk. xxi. 9-11; 
(8) the OAtfus, Mk. xiii. 14-20=Mt. xxiv. 15-22; (y) the mapovela, Mk, 
xiii, 24-27=Mt. xxiv. 29-31=Lk. xxi. 25-27.1_ Briggs points out the insigni- 
ficance of the fact that ideas such as these are found in Jewish pseudepigrapha. 
These ideas were by them derived from the O.T., which was the common 
source of both canonical and uncanonical apocalypses, whether Jewish or 
Christian. Jesus uses this source on other occasions, and there is nothing 
unreasonable in the belief that He uses it here. The cosmical disturbances 
foretold (wv. 25-27) ‘‘ belong not only to the theophanies and the Christophanies 
of prophecy, but also to the theophanies and Christophanies of history in both 
the Old Testament and the New. They represent the response of the creature 
to the presence of the Creator” (p. 155). Both Briggs and Nosgen (Gesch. J. C. 
Kap. ix.) give abundant references to the literature of the subject in Beyschlag 
(Z. /.), Hilgenfeld (Zz/. z. N.7.), Holsten (de Syn. Zv.), Immer (li. 
Theol.), Mangold in Bleek (Zzu/. 2. N.7.), Pfleiderer (Urchristen.), Pressensé 
(J. C.), Spitta (de Offbg. des Joh.) and Wendt (Lehre Jesu). See also especially 
D. E. Haupt (Zschatolog. Aussagen Jesu in d. Syn. Evang., Berlin, 1895). 


87, 38. General Description of the Last Days of Christ’s 
Public Ministry. 

37. Tas qpépas. “ During the days.” From the other narra- 
tives we infer that this covers the day of the triumphal entry and 
the next two days. It is, therefore, retrospective, and is a 
repetition, with additional detail, of xix. 47. The contrast with 
tas Sé vdxtas, “but during the nights,” is obvious. It is not clear 
whether jv belongs to év 76 icpd or to didadoKwv, which probably 
ought to follow (SsACDLRXTAATI) and not precede (BK) 
év T@ tepa. 

éfepyduevos judileto eis. ‘Leaving (the temple) He used to 
go and bivouac on” (iv. 23, vii. 1, ix. 61, xi. 7). Comp. pyxere 
aiducOjre eis Nuevy (Tobit xiv. 10), t7d tobs KAddous abrys 
atdwcOijoeror (Ecclus. xiv. 26). On the M. of Olives He would 
be undisturbed (xxii. 39). For kadodpevoy see on vi. 15, and for 
*"EAawy see on xix. 29. It is not probable that eis 76 dpos is to 
be taken with éfepyduevos, but the participle of motion has 
influenced the choice of preposition. 

38. dpOpile mpds adtéy. Another condensed expression: “rose 
early and came to Him.” The verb occurs here only in N.T., but 


1 Holtzmann (Handcomm. on Mt. xxiv. 4-34, Eng. tr. p. 112) makes the 
divisions thus: (a) Mt. xxiv. 4-14; (8) 15-28; (y) 29-34- 


XXI. 88-XXIL.1.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 489 


is freq. in LXX. Twice we have the two verbs combined, ai\ic- 
Onte Gde... kai épOptctre aipiov cis dddv tydv (Judg. xix. g)° 
avAicGGpe ev Kopats” épOpicwper cis duweAGvas (Cant. vii. 11, 12). 
The literal meaning is the right one here, although dp@pi{w may 
mean “seek eagerly” (Ps. Ixxvii. 34 ; Ecclus. iv. 12, vi. 36; Wisd. 
vi. 14). Contrast Ps. cxxvii. 2; 1 Mac. iv. 52, vi. 33, xi. 67; 
Gospel of Nicodemus xv. The classical form ép@pevw is always 
used in the literal sense. 


Most MSS. of Vulg. here have the strange rendering manicabat ad eum, 
which is also the rendering in Cod. Brix. (f), the best representative of the 
Old Latin text on which Jerome worked. But G has mane zbat, which may 
possibly be Jerome’s correction of manicabat, a word of which Augustine 
says mihi non occurrit. See Ronsch, 74. und Vulg. p.174. Other render- 
ings are—vigelabat ad eum (d), de luce wigilabant ad eum (a), ante lucem 
veniebat ad eum (er), diluculo conventendum erat (Tert.). See on xvi. 26. 

Five cursives (13, 69, 124, 346, 556), which are closely related, here 
insert the pericope of the Woman taken in Adultery, an arrangement ‘which 
was perhaps suggested by p8p:fe here and Spépou Jn. viii. 2. The common 
origin of 13, 69, 124, 346 is resused as certain. See Scrivener, Jt. to 
Crit. of N.T. i. pp. 192, 202, 231; T. K. Abbott, Collation of Four Important 
MSS. of the Gospels, Dublin, 1877. ‘*The Section was probably known to 
the scribe exclusively as a church lesson, recently come into use ; and placed 

a aes here on account of the close resemblance between vz. 37, 38 and [Jo] 

vii, 53, Vili. I, 2, Had he known it as part of a continuous text of St. 
John’s Gospel, he was not likely to transpose it” (WH. ii. App. p. 63). 


XXIL-XXIV. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION, 


We now enter upon the last main division of the Gospel 
(xxii.—xxiv.), containing the narratives of the Passion, Resurrection, 
and Ascension. The first of these three subjects falls into three 
parts :—The Preparation (xxii. 1-38); the Passion (xxii. 39—xxiii. 
49); and the Burial (xxiii. 50-56). In the first of these parts we 
may distinguish the following sections:—The Approach of the 
Passover and the Malice of the Hierarchy (xxii. 1, 2); the 
Treachery of Judas (3-6); the Preparation for the Paschal Supper 
(7-13) ; the Institution of the Eucharist (14-24) ; the Strife about 
Priority (25-34); the New Conditions (35-38). In this part of 
the narrative the particulars which are wholly or mainly peculiar 
to Lk. are those contained in vz. 8, 15, 24, 28-30, 35-38. 

XXII. 1-38. The Preparation for the Passion. Comp. Mt. 
xxvi. 1-29; Mk. xiv. 1-25. 

E “Hyyehev. ““Was drawing nigh.” Mt. and Mk. say more 


definitely pera dvo 7pepas. Keim calls attention to the fidelity 
of this introductory section, 27. I-13 (¥. p. 305, n.). 


q €opr) tov G{ipwr. The phrase is freq. in LXX (Exod 


490 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXII 1-4, 


xxlil, 15, xxxiv. 18; Deut. xvi. 16; 2 Chron. viii. r2, etc.), but 

occurs nowhere else in N.T. Comp. ii. 41. Lk. is fond of these 
Hebraistic circumlocutions: 9 juépa 7. af. (ver. 7), 9 Huépa trav 
oaBBdrwv (iv. 16; Acts xiii. 14, xvi. 13), juepae 7. a€. (Acts xii. 3, 
xx. 6); BiBdos Wadpay (xx. 42; Acts 1. 20), BiBAos trav rpopyrav 
(Acts vii. 42), etc. See small print on iv. 16. 

4 Neyopevn Mdoxa. Strictly speaking the Passover on Nisan 
14th was distinct from the F. of Unleavened Bread, which lasted 
from the 15th to the 21st (Lev. xxiii. 5,6; Num. xxviii. 16, 17; 
2 Chron. xxx. 15, 21; Ezra vi. 19, 22; 1 Esdr. i. 10-19; comp. 
Mk. xiv. 1). But they were so closely connected, that it was 
common to treat them as one festival. Not only Lk. as “ writing 
mainly for Gentiles” does so, but Mt. (xxvi. 17); and Josephus 
goes beyond either in saying éopriv dyopey ep yuepas oxo, THY 
tov “Afipwv Aeyouevnv (Ant. ii. 15. 1). Comp. cata tov Karpov 
Ths tov "Alipwv éoptyas iv Bdoxa A€youev (xiv. 2.1). Elsewhere 
he distinguishes them (47z, iii. 10. 5, ix. 13. 3). 

2. élntouw... 73 was. “They continued seeking as to the 
method”: comp. xix. 47, 48, and for the 76 see oni. 62. Mt. 
tells us that they held a meeting in the house of Caiaphas. 

évéhwow. Another of Lk.’s favourite words. Here, xxiii. 32, 
and eighteen times in the Acts it has the special meaning of 
“remove, s/ay”: so also 2 Thes. ii. 8, where the reading is 
doubtful. This meaning is common in LXX (Gen. iv. 15; Exod. 
ii, 14, 15, xxi. 29, etc.) and in class. Grk. Except Mt. ii. 16; 
2 Thes. ii. 8, and Heb. x. 9 (where see Wsctt.), it occurs only in 
Lk. With époBodvto comp. xx. 19, xix. 48, xxi. 38. 

8. Eioa lev S€ Laravas. Comp. Jn. xiii. 2, where this stage is 
represented as the devil making suggestions to Judas, while his 
entering and taking possession of the traitor is reserved for the 
moment before he left the upper room to carry out his treachery 
(xiii. 27). See on x. 18 and comp. iv. 13, to which this perhaps 
looks back. Satan is renewing the attack. Neither Mt. nor Mk. 
mentions Satan here. But there is no hint that Judas is now like 
a demoniac, unable to control his own actions (Hahn). Judas 
opened the door to Satan. He did not resist him, and Satan did 
not flee from him. Jesus must suffer, but Judas need not become 
the traitor. 

Tov KadoUpevoy “loxapidtyy. All three give this distinctive sur- 
name (see on vi. 16), and also the tragic fact that he was tav 
Sadexa. Comp. i. 36, vi. 15, Vil. 11, Vili. 2, 1x. 10, X. 39, Xix. 2, 29. 

For xadovpevov (§ BD LX) TR. has émixwdovpevov (ACPRT'AATI), a 
form commonly used in Acts (i. 23, iv. 36, x. 5, 32, xii. 25). In Acts i. 23 
we have both verbs. 


4. otparnyois. Lk. alone mentios these officials. They are 


XXII. 4-6.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 491 


the leaders of the corps of Levites, which kept guard in and 
about the temple. The full title is orparyyoi tod iepod (ver. 52). 
See Edersh. Zhe Temple, p. 119; Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 3. These 
officers would be consulted, because they had to take part in 
carrying out the arrest. The chief of them was called 6 orparnyds 
Tov tepod (Acts iv. 1, v. 24, 26), or “the man of the temple mount ” 
or “the man of the mount of the house.” Comp. 2 Mac. iii. 4. 
Here and ver. 52 the plur. has no art. 


D, abcdeff,ilq Syr-Cur. Aeth. omit xal orparnyots, but all these, 
excepting D d, substitute xal tots ypauparetow. CP retain both, adding 
Tov lepod to orparyyots. 


mapado. In vi. 16 Judas is called zpoddrys, but elsewhere 
mapadidovat, not mpodiddvar, is the word used to describe his 
crime. ~ 


5. éxdpncav. It was wholly unexpected, and it simplified 
matters enormously. 

cuvébevto. Acts xxiii. 20; Jn. ix. 22; and quite classical. 
Mk. has érnyyeiAavto. The éoryoay of Mt. refers to the actual 
paying of the money. He alone states the amount, — thirty 
shekels. 

6. dtep Sxdov. Either “without a crowd” or “without 
tumult.” Comp. Mt. xxvi. 5. Contrast pera oxAov, Acts xxiv. 18. 
In bibl. Grk. the poetical word drep occurs only here, ver. 35, and 
2 Mac. xii. 15. Very possibly the priests had intended to wait 
until the feast was over before arresting Jesus. The offer of Judas 
induced ...em to make the attempt before the feast began. 


Keim rightly rejects with decision the theory that the betrayal by Judas 
is not history, but a Christian fiction personifying in Judas the Jewish people. 
That Christians should invent so appalling a crime for an Apostle is quite . 
beyond belief. The crime of Judas is in all four Gospels and in the Acts, 
and is emphasized by Christ’s foreknowledge of it. Speculations as to other 
causes of it besides the craving for money are not very helpful: but the 
motives may easily have been complex. 

The well-known difficulty as to the time of the Last Supper and of our 
Lord’s death cannot be conclusively solved with our present knowledge. But 
the difficulty is confined to the day of the mont. All four accounts agree 
with the generally accepted belief that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. In 
the Synoptists this Friday seems to be the 15th Nisan. Jn. (xiii. 1, 20, 
xviii. 28, xix. 14, 31) clearly intimates that it was the 14th, and we shall 
probably do rightly in abiding by his statements and seeing whether the others 
can be brought into harmony with it. This is perhaps most easily done by 
regarding, in accordance with Jewish reckoning, the evening of the 13th as the 
beginning of the 14th. All, therefore, that is said to have taken place ‘‘on 
the first day of unleavened bread” may have taken place after sunset on what 
we should call the 13th. It seems improbable that the priests and their 
officials would go to arrest Jesus at the very time when the whole nation was 
celebrating the Paschal meal. It is more easy to believe that Jesus celebrated 
the Paschal meal before the usual time, viz. on the Jewish 14th, but before 


492 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO Ss, LUKE [XXII 6-16. 


midnight and some twenty hours before the usual time for slaughtering the 
lambs, at which time He was dying or dead upon the cross. 

Professor D. Chwolson of Petersburg has made a new attempt at a solution 
in a recently published essay, Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines 
Todes ; Mémoire de [ Académie Impériale des Sciences, vii¢ Serie, tome xli, 
No. 1. A criticism in the Guardzan, June 28, 1893, tends to show that it 
leaves the crucial question just where it was. A later contribution is that of 
G. M. Semeria, Ze Jour de la Mort de Jésus ; Rev. 621. 1, 1896. 


7. "H\Oev Se H Hp. t. af. The day itself arrived, as distinct 
from “was approaching” (ver. 1). This arriving would take 
place at sunset on the 13th. See Schanz, ad foc. Mt. and Mk. 
have 7H zpwéry Tov alipuv. 

der OecOar. This in no way proves that the 14th, according 
to our reckoning, is intended. The day on which the lambs had 
to be killed began at sunset on the 13th, and ended at sunset on 
the 14th; and the lambs were killed about 2.30-5.30 P.M. on the 
14th in the Court of the Priests. Each head of the company sharing 
the lamb slew the animal, whose blood was caught in a bowl by 
a priest and poured at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering 
(Edersh. Zhe Temple, p. 190). It was on the evening of the 13th 
that the houses were carefully searched for leaven, in silence, and 
with a light: comp. 1 Cor. v. 7; Zeph.i. 12. The édea refers to 
legal necessity: it was so prescribed. 

8. dméoreXkev. Both Mt. and Mk. omit this preliminary order 
and begin with the disciples’ question: and Lk. alone gives the 
names of the two who were sent. As this does not harmonize 
with the theory that Lk. shows azimus against Peter, we are told 
that Peter and John are named by Lk. as the representatives of 
the old Judaism. The treason of Judas might lead Jesus to select 
two of His most trusted Apostles. 

10. The care with which Jesus avoids an open statement to 
all the disciples as to the place ordained for the supper may be 
explained in the same way. Until His hour is come Judas must 
be prevented from executing his project: and no miracle is 
wrought, where ordinary precautions suffice. In what follows Lk. 
and Mk. are almost identical: Mt. is more brief. 

Evidently the av@pwios is not the head of the household, but a 
servant or slave: the carrying of water was specially the work of 
~-slaves or of women (Deut. xxix. 11; Josh. ix. 21-27; Gen. 
xxiv. I1; Jn. iv. 7). The head of the house is zm the house 
(vv. 10, 11). The suggestion, therefore, that this is the master of 
the house drawing the water for making the leaven, according to 
custom, on the 13th of Nisan, falls to the ground. This incident 
gives no help in deciding between the 13th and the 14th. The 
water was more probably for washing the hands before the evening 
meal. With xepdysov voatos comp. addBacrtpov pdpov (vil. 37). 
As in the case of the colt (xix. 30), we are uncertain whether this 


XXII. 10-12.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 493 


is a case of supernatural knowledge, or of previous arrangement ; 
but in both cases prophetic prescience seems to be implied. 


For amphoram aque portans (Vulg.) bajulans bascellum (vascellum) 
ue (d). 
A 11. épetre. Fut. for imperat. This is more common in prohibitions than 
in commands (iv. 12; Acts xxiii. 5; Mt. vi. 5). In the Decalogue, only the 
ositive tlua Tov matépa has the imperative: the negative commandments 
fete ov with the fut. indic. Win. xlili. 5. c, p. 396. 

T® oixodeomdsTy THS otxlas. A pleonasm marking a late stage in the 
1anguage, in which the meaning of olkodeomérys has become indefinite: comp. 
Urorbd.ov Tov WodGy (xx. 43), cvav auBboia, orparnydv TAS oTpatins, the 
Daily Journal, etc. The cogn. accus. (7é\ewov modepetv, olkodometv otxov) is 
different. 


6 SiSdoKados. Like 6 xvpios (xix. 31), this implies that the 
man knows Jesus, and is perhaps in some degree a disciple. 

To katddupa. Not necessarily the same as the avdyauov 
(ver. 12). It is possible that Jesus only asked for the large 
general room on the ground floor (comp. ii. 7), but that the man 
gave Him the best room, reserved for more private uses, above the 
katdAvya. It was a common thing for the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
to lend a room to pilgrims for the passover, the usual payment 
being the skin of the paschal lamb and the vessels used at the 
meal. Mt. alone gives the words 6 xatpds pov éyy’s éoriv, which 
perhaps explains why Jesus is having the paschal meal before the 
time. Neither here, nor at the supper, is any mention of a lamb: 
and perhaps there was none. The time for slaughtering had not 
yet come; and, as Jesus was excommunicated, it is not likely that 
the priests would have helped His disciples to observe the ritual 
respecting it. Moreover, there would hardly be time for all this 
and for the roasting of the lamb. The Last Supper was the 
inauguration of a new order rather than the completion of an old 
one ; and its significance is enhanced if the central symbol of the 
old dispensation was absent, when He whom it symbolized was 
instituting the commemoration of that which the old symbol pre- 
figured. It was on the last great day of the F. of Tabernacles, 
when the water from Siloam was probably zo¢ poured out beside 
the altar, that Jesus cried, ‘If any man thirst, let him come unto 
Me, and drink” (Jn. vii. 37); and it was when the great lamps 
were oz lit in the Court of the Women, that He said, “I am the 
Light of the World” (Jn. vill. 12). From vv. 15-19 it appears 
that 74 méoxa and pdyw refer to the eucharistic bread and wine. 


12, avayorov. ‘* Anything raised above the ground (dvd or dw and 
aia or yi), upper floor (Xen. Azad. v. 4. 29), upper room.” Only here and 
Mk. xiv. 15. The MSS. vary between dvdyauov, dvdyasor, dviryewy, avwryews, 
dvwyatov, and dvwyeov. Most, including the best, have dvdyatov. That 
this room is identical with the drepgoy, Acts i. 13, is pure conjecture: the 
change of word is against it. 


494 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXII. 12-16. 


In both passages Vulg. has cenaculum, for which Old Latin texts have 
here medianum (a), pede plano locum (b), supertorum locum (q), im superioré- 
bus locum (ce), and supertorem domum (a). 


éotpwpevov. “Spread, furnished ”—with what, depends upon 
the context, which here suggests couches or cushions: comp. Acts 
ix. 34. Luther erroneously has gefflastert. Mk. adds €rotmoy, 
which some insert here. 

13. xaQds. ‘‘ Even as”: the correspondence was exact ; comp. 
xix. 32. The Evangelists seem to intimate that Christ’s knowledge 
was supernatural rather than the result of previous arrangement. 
But in any case the remaining ten, including Judas, were left in 
ignorance as to where the meal was to take place. 

14-23. The Last Supper, with the Institution of the Eucharist 
as a new Passover: comp. Mt. xxvi. 20-29; Mk. xiv. 17-25. The 
declaration that one of them is a traitor is placed by Mt. and Mk. 
at the beginning of the section, by Lk. at the end (ver. 21): comp. 
Jn. xiii. 21, where the wording of the declaration agrees with Mt. 
and Mk. Lk. seems to have used an independent source: comp. 
1Cor “xt. (24, 25. 

14. Lk.’s independence appears at once: nearly every word in 
the verse differs from Mt. and Mk. 

dvémecev, Mt. has avéxero: the practice of standing (Exod. 
xii. 11) had long been abandoned; first for sitting, and then for 
reclining. Jos servorum est, ut edant stantes; at nunc comedunt 
recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse eos e servitute in libertatem, was 
the explanation given by the Rabbins. The choosing of the lamb 
ten days in advance had also been given up. Here, as elsewhere, 
dvariztw implies a change of position (xi. 37, xiv. 10, xvil. 7; Jn. 
xili. 12, 25, etc.). Lft. On a Fresh Revision of N.T. p. 80. 


ot &nécrodor. This is the true reading. In some texts dédexa has been 
inserted (AC PR) or substituted (LX) from Mt. and Mk. Ten to thirty 
was the number for a passover. Note that Lk. once more has ovv, where 
others have werd or kal: comp. viii. 38, 51, xx. I, xxii. 56. 


15. The whole of this verse and most of the next are peculiar 
to Lk. The combination of ériGupia éreOiunoa with Tot pe rabeiv 
is remarkable. ‘The knowledge of the intensity of the suffering 
does not cancel the intensity of the desire. ) 


*EmOupla éaefupnoa. A Hebraism common in LXX. Comp. Acts 
fv. 17, v. 28, xxiii. 143 Jn. iii. 29; Mt. xiii. 14, xv. 4; James v. 17; Gen. 
xxxi. 30; Exod. xxi. 20; Deut. vii. 26, etc. . 


16. od ph ddyw airs. After this present occasion. The avro 
must refer to rodro 7d mdoxa (ver. 15), and shows that this need 
not imply a lamb. The Passover of which Christ will partake, 
after having fulfilled the type, is the Christian Eucharist, in which 
He joins with the faithful in the Kingdom of God on earth. Others 


XXII. 16-18.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 495 


suppose the reference to be to the spiritual banquet in the world 
to come. But if avré means the paschal lamb, in what sense could __ 
Jesus partake of that in the future? The Mishna itself con- \ 
templates the possibility of a passover without a lamb, and rules 
that unleavened bread is the only essential thing. With an influx 

_ of many thousands of pilgrims, to provide a lamb might be in 

|__ some cases impossible. 

17. Sefdpevos. It was handed to Him: contrast AaBar, ver. 19 
(Schanz). It is usual to consider this as the first or second of the 
four cups that were handed round during the paschal meal; the 
eucharistic cup being identified with the third or fourth. But we 
are in doubt (1) as to what the paschal ritual was at this time; 

, (2) as to the extent to which Jesus followed the paschal ritual in 
this highly exceptional celebration ; (3) as to the text of this pas- 
sage, especially as to whether Lk. records two cups or only one: so 
that identifications of this kind are very precarious. In any case, 

_Lk. mentions a cup defore the breaking of the bread, whether this 
be the eucharistic cup or not: and S. Paul twice mentions the cup 
first (1 Cor. x. 16, 21), although in his account of the institution 
he follows the usual order (1 Cor. xi. 23). In the Avdayy the cup 
is placed first (ix. 2: see Schaff’s 3rd ed. pp. 58-61, 191). 
edxapioTyoas. This seems to imply the eucharistic cup. All 
three have edxapioryoas of the cup. Lk. repeats it of the bread, 
where Mt. and Mk. have etAoyyoas, 


In the Jewish ritual the person who presided began by asking a blessing on 
the feast; then blessed, drank, and passed the first cup. Then Ps. xiii. and 
xiv. were sung and the bitter herbs eaten, followed by the second cup. After 
which the president explained the meaning of the feast: and some think that for 
this explanation of the old rite Jesus substituted the institution of the new one. 
After the eating of the lamb and unleavened cakes came the thanksgiving for the 
meal and the blessing and drinking of the third cup. Lastly, the singing of Ps, 
cxv,—Cxviii, followed by the fourth cup: and there was sometimes a fifth. 


Sf Siopepifare. Comp. Acts ii. 45; Judg. v. 30. Followed by eis 
éaurous, it expresses More strongly than the mid. (xxiii. 34; Mt. 
xxvil. 35) the fact of mutual distribution. In some texts (A D etc.) 
eis éavrovs has been altered into the more usual dat. (Jn. xix. 24; 
Acts ii. 45). The distribution would be made by each drinking in 
turn, rather than by each pouring some into a cup of his own. 
The «is éavrovs perhaps corresponds to the wavres of Mt. and Mk. 
Iléere (emvov) eé adrod ravres, 

18. dm tod viv. This at first sight appears to mean that Jesus 
did not partake of the cup. “I say, Divide it among yourselves, 
because henceforth I shall zof drink,” etc. But this would be 
strange ; for (1) according to Jewish practice it would be monstrous 
for the presiding person to abstain from partaking ; (2) Jesus had 
just said that He earnestly desired to partake of this paschal meal; 


é ar 


496 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXII 18. 


and (3) vv. 17, 18 seem to be parallel to 15, 16: He eats the 
paschal food, and then says that it is for the last time under these 
conditions ; and He drinks of the paschal cup, and then says that it 
is for the last time under these conditions. There is nothing in any 
of the accounts to prevent us from supposing that Jesus drank 

_before handing the cup to the others. The ydp explains why they 
are to consume it among ¢hemselves, and not expect Him to take 
more than was ceremoniously necessary ; and the a6 rod voy will 
then be quite exact. “I have just drunk ; but from this moment 
onwards I will drink no more”: comp. ovKéri od py iw. It was 
possibly because a7é rot vdv seemed to mean that Jesus refused to 
drink that some texts (A C etc.) omitted the words. 

ToU yevy}matos THs dpmréhou. Some regard this as a reference to 
the Jewish benediction at the first cup: “Blessed be Thou, O 
Lord our God, the King of the world, who hast created the fruit 
of the vine.” It is quite uncertain that this form was in use at the 
time. 


Latin variations in rendering are of interest: gexeratione vitis (Vulg.), 
fructu vines (a), creatura vinex (d), gentmine vitis (5). Comp. iii. 7. Syr- 
Sin. ons “fof the vine.” See Pasch. Radb. on Mt. xxvi. 29, Migne, 
cxx. 895. 


{ 19, 20. In connexion with what follows we have these points to consider. 

(1) Are the words from 76 brép budv didbuevoy to 7d brép duav exxuvvdpuevor 

part of the original text? (2) Ifthey are, is 7d 7orjprov in ver. 20 the same as 

__xorjp.ov in ver. 17? 

Assuming provisionally that the overwhelming external evidence of almost 

’ all MSS. and Versions in favour of the words in question is to be accepted, we 

may discuss the second point. As in the other case, neither view is free from 

\\ serious difficulty. If the cup of ver. 20 is not the same as that of ver. 17, then 

Lk. not only states that Jesus did not drink of the eucharistic cup (for 0} uh 

alw dd Tov vov excludes the partaking of any subsequent cup), but he aisu 

records that Jesus charged the Apostles to partake of the earlier cup, while he is 

silent as to any charge to partake of the eucharistic cup. So far as this report 

of the Institution goes, therefore, we are expressly told that the Celebrant 

refused the cup Himself, and we are not told that He handed it to the disciples. 

If, on the other hand, we identify the two cups, and regard vv. 17, 18 as the 

remature mention of what should have been given in one piece at ver. 20, then 

its severance into two portions, and the insertion of the distribution of the bread 

between the two portions, are inexplicable. Of the two difficulties, this seems 

to be the greater, and it is better not to identify the two cups. It is some con- 

firmation of this that in ver. 17 or7jpiov is without the article, ‘*a@ cup,” while 

in ver. 20 it is ‘‘¢he cup.” But 7d rorjpiov need not mean more than ‘the cup 

just mentioned.” In Mt. and Mk. srorjpioyv has no article: and in all three 

prov has no article: so that its absence in ver. 17 and presence in ver. 20 is 

not of much weight in deciding between the two difficulties. The only way to 
avoid both these difficulties is to surrender the passage as an interpolation. 

Dad fil omit from 70 brrép bur to éxxuvyducvov, and Syr-Cur. omits ver. 20, 
while b e Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. place ver. 19 before ver. 17, an arrangement 
which has been elaborately advocated by Dean Blakesley (Pre/ectzo in Scholis 
Cantab. Feb. 14, 1850). The possibility of the whole being an importation from 
1 Cor. xi. 24, 25 may be admitted on the evidence ; but the probability of ver. 19, 
either to 7d Gud mov (b e Syr-Cur.), or to the end (Syr-Sin.), having stood 


XXII. 19.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 497 


originally before ver. 17 is almost infinitesimal. In what way can we account 
for so simple an arrangement (harmonizing with Mt. and Mk.) becoming almost 
universally disturbed? ‘‘ These difficulties, added to the suspicious coincidence 
with 1 Cor. xi. 24f., and the Transcriptional evidence given above, leave-no 
moral doubt (see /trod. § 240) that the words in question were absent from 
the original text of Le, notwithstanding_the-purely--Western ancestry_of the 
deeuments which omit them” (WH. ii. App. p. 64). For the other view see 
Scrivener; also R. A. Hofimann, Adendmahisgedanken Jesu Christi, 1896, 


PP- 5-25: 


19. \aBdv dprov edyapioricas éxXacev, The taking bread (ora 
loaf), breaking, giving thanks, and the declaration, “This is My 
Body,” are in all four accounts. But for edyapeorjoas here and 
1 Cor. xi. 24 Mt. and Mk. have eiAoyjoas, and both here and 1 Cor. 
AdBere is omitted. Mt. alone has ¢ayere with Ader of the bread, 
and Lk. alone has Adfere of the cup (ver. 17); but perhaps this is 
not the eucharistic cup (see above). 

Toiré éotiv 75 cGpdé pov. Not much is gained by pointing out 
that the éorw would not be expressed in Aramaic. It must be 
understood ; and the meaning of rotro, and its relation to 76 cépa 
pov must be discussed. The rodro cannot mean the act of break- 
ing and eating, nor anything else excepting “this bread.” For the 
meaning of éo7: see ver. 20, where the rorypuov is identified with 
% kaw? dvayKn, and comp. cic in Jn. viii. 12, ix. 5, xiv. 6, xv. I, 5. 
In taking this bread they in some real sense take His Body. See 
Thirlwall’s Charges, vol. i. Charges v. and vi.; vol. ii. Charge x. 
and esp. p. 251, ed. Perowne, 1877; also Gould on Mk. xiv. 22. 

73 bmép Spav S8duevov. Peculiar to this account: “which is 
being given for your advantage.” The xAdmevov, which many texts 
add to 76 iép tor in 1 Cor. xi. 24, is not genuine. 

todto troette. The proposal to give these words a sacrificial 
meaning, and translate them “Offer this, Sacrifice this, Offer this 
sacrifice,” cannot be maintained. It has against it (1) the ordinary 
meaning of wovetv in N.T., in LXX, and in Greek literature gener- 
ally ; (2) the authority of all the Greek Fathers, who knew their 
own language, knew the N.T. and the LXX, and understood the 
words as having the ordinary meaning, “ Perform this action”; 
(3) the authority of the Zar/y Liturgies, which do not use roveiv or 
jacere when the bread and wine are offered, but zpoodépew or 
offerre, although the words of institution precede the oblation, and 
thus suggest rovety or facere ; (4) the authority of a /arge majority 
of commentators, ancient and modern, of the most various schools, 
who either make no comment, as if the ordinary meaning were too 


1 It has been asserted that Justin Martyr (77y. xli. and Ixx.) is an exception. 
But this isa mistake. That Justin himself sometimes uses roreiy in a sacrificial 
sense is possible ; that he understood rofro ro:e?re in this sense is not credible. 
No subsequent Father notes that Justin gives this interpretation, an interpreta 
tion so remarkable that it must have attracted attention. 


32 


498 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXII 19 


obvious to need stating: or give the ordinary meaning without 
mentioning any other as worthy of consideration; or expressly 
reject the sacrificial meaning; (5) the testimony of the Septuagint, 
in which the various and frequent Hebrew words which mean 
“offer” or “sacrifice” are translated, not by zovetvy, but by rpoade- 
pew or avadépe or the like; (6) the fact that here and in x Cor. 
xl. 24 the writer might easily have made the sacrificial meaning clear 
by using zpoo¢épew or dvapépav. He has not even suggested such 
a meaning, as he might have done by writing zouctre rodrov, 2.¢. 
Tovrov Tov aptov. He has given as a translation of Christ’s words 
neither “ Offer this bread,” nor “‘ Offer this,” nor “ Do this bread ” 
(which might have suggested “ Offer this bread”), but “ Do this 
thing.” See Zxposztor, 3rd series, vii. 441; T. K. Abbot, Zssays 
on the Original Texts of O. & N.T., Longmans, 1891, p. 110; 4 
Reply to Mr. Supple’s and other Criticisms, Longmans, 1893 ; 
Mason, Faith of the Gospel, Rivingtons, 1888, p. 309. 

eis THY Epny dvdpynow. “ With a view to a calling to mind, a 
recollection, of Me.” The word means more than a mere record 
or memorial, and is in harmony with the pres. imperat. zovetre : 
“‘ Continually do this in order to bring Me to mind,” ze. “to remind 
yourselves and others of the redemption which I have won by My 
death.” The eucharist is to be a continual calling to mind of Him 
who redeemed men from the bondage of sin, as the Passover was 
an annual calling to mind of redemption from the bondage of 
Egypt (Exod. xii. 24-27, xili. 8, 14). In N.T. dvdyvqow occurs 
only here, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, and Heb. x. 3, where see Wsctt. 
Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17; 2 Tim. i. 6. In LXX it occurs Lev. xxiv. 7; 
Num. x. 10; Wisd. xvi. 6; the titles of Ps. xxxvii. and lxix. 
T. K. Abbott has shown that a sacrificial meaning cannot be 
obtained from dvdéuvyow any more than from ovetre (Essays, ete. 
p. 122; A Reply, etc. p. 34). 

The els corresponds to tva rather than to és, and indicates the purport of 
the new institution. For the possessive pronoun used objectively comp. 
Rom. xi. 31; 1 Cor. xv. 31, xvi. 17. 

The omission of this charge, tofro movetre, x.7.d., in Mt. and Mk. has 
attracted attention. Dr. C. A. Briggs says, “‘ Jiilicher (Zur Gesch. der Abend- 
miahlsfecer in der Gltesten Kirche, in the Theolog. Abhandlungen Wetzsacker 
gewidmet, 1892, s. 238 seg.) and Spitta (Urchréstenthum, i. s. 238 seg.) are 
doubtless correct in their opinion that the earliest Christian tradition, repre- 
sented by Mark and Matthew, knew nothing of an institution of the Lord’s 
Supper by Jesus on the night of His betrayal, as a sacrament to be observed 
continuously in the future. But they admit that Paul and Luke are sustained 
by the earliest Christian usage in representing it as a permanent institution. 
It is easier to suppose that the risen Lord in connection with these manifesta- 
tions commanded the perpetual observance of the holy supper, just as He gave 
the Apostles their commission to preach and baptize, and explained the 
mystery of His life and death (Luke xxiv. 25-49). Paul and Luke would 
then combine the words of Jesus on two different occasions” (Zhe Messiah of 
the Gospels, T. & T. Clark, 1894, p. 123). 


. 


XXII. 20-22.| THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 499 


20. 13 motipiov. The to may mean the cup which all Christians 
know as part of the eucharist, or (if this passage be genuine) 
the cup mentioned before (ver. 17). Paul also has the article, 
Mt. and Mk. not. The other portions of this verse which are in 
1 Cor., but not in Mt. and Mk., are dcavrus pera 76 Serrvjra... 
To morypiov . . . Kaw? . . . ev 7d. On the other hand, Paul and 
Lk. omit IIdere && abrod ravres (Mt.) or émioy e€ adrod ravres (Mk.). 
The dcavtws means that He took it, gave thanks, and gave it to 
them. For xawj, which is opposed to zadad (2 Cor. iii. 6; 
comp. Rom. xi. 27), see on v. 38. 

Siabykn ev TH aipatt pov. Mt. and Mk. have 76 aia pov ris 
SiaOy«ns, which is closer to LXX of Exod. xxiv. 8, 76 ala ris 
Siadyxns. Comp. év aluart Siabyxns (Zech. ix. 11). The éeséa- 
mentum sanguine suo obsignatum of Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. 
iv. 40) gives the sense fairly well. The ratification of a covenant 
was commonly associated with the shedding of blood; and what 
was written in blood was believed to be indelible. For S:a0yxy 
see Wsctt. on Heb. ix. 15, 16, with the additional note, p. 298. 

76 Sreép Spay exxuvvonevoy, The trav is peculiar to this passage. 
Mk. has izep rodAGv, Mt. wepi woAAGy, and Paul omits. The 
tpov both here and in ver. 19 means the Apostles as representatives 
of all. 


The part. fs the Afolic form of the pres. part. pass. of éxxdrw = éxxéu 
(comp. Acts xxii. 20); ‘‘ being poured out,” like dudéuevoy (ver. 19). In 
sense 70 €xx. agrees with afuati, but in grammar with rorjpiov: in Mt. and 
Mk., both in sense and grammar, with aiua. But see Win. Ixvii. 3, p. 791. 


21-28. The Declaration about the Traitor, Comp. Mt. 
xxvi. 21-25; Mk. xiv. 18-21; Jn. xili. 21-30. 

If Lk. places this incident in its proper place, Judas did partake 
of the eucharist. But the question cannot be decided. See 
Schanz, ad loc. pp. 509, 510. 

21. thi idod 4 xelp . . . emt tis tpaméfys. The expression is 
peculiar to Lk. The w)yjyv here indicates a transition; an expan- 
sion or change of subject. From the meaning of His death He 
passes to the manner of it. Others take it as a restriction of imép 
tpov ; others again as marking a contrast between Christ’s conduct 
and that of the traitor. See on vi. 24, 35, x. 11, 14. The verse 
may be understood literally, but probably means no more than 
that the traitor was sharing the same meal with Him: comp. Mt. 
XXVi. 23. 

22. It is here that Lk. is almost verbatim the same as Mt. and 
Mk. Such solemn words would be likely to be remembered in 
one and the same form. Keim draws attention to their conspicu- 
ous originality. They are not adaptations of anything in O.T., 
although Obad. 7 and Mic. vii. 6 might appropnately have been 


500 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII 22-24, 


used (v. p. 309). He regards Lk. as most exact. In any case 
mopeverat, for which Mt. and Mk. have izdye, is to be noticed. It 
is probably used in the LXX sense of “depart, die”: comp. Ps. 
Ixxvill. 39. 

ott 6 ulds pev. The “because” explains how such an amazing 
thing has come to pass. Failure to see the meaning of ére 
(s BD LT, Sah. Boh.) has caused the substitution in many texts 
of xa (AXTAATIL, bcefff, Vulg. Syr-Sin. Arm. Aeth.), while 
others omit (ad, Orig.). 

kata TO @picpevov. It is part of the Divine decree that the 
death of the Christ should be accompanied by betrayal: Mt. and 
Mk. have kafas yéyparrat rept adrod: comp. Acts i. 23. Except- 
ing Rom. i. 4; Heb. iv. 7, dpiZev is peculiar to Lk. (Acts ii. 23, 
X. 42, XL 20, XVil.. 26, 31): 

why obat. Mt. and Mk. have ovat d€; but Lk. is fond of 
aAnv (ver. 21). Although God knows from all eternity that Judas 
is the betrayer of the Christ, ye¢ this does not destroy the freedom 
or responsibility of Judas. The éxeive marks him off as an alien: 
comp. Jn. xilil. 26, 27, 30. Mt. and Mk. add xadov air@ ei ovk 
eyevv7Oy 6 avOpwrros éxeivos. 

23. Here jpéarto is the one word which is common to all three. 
Mt. and Mk. say that they each asked Jesus (and Mt. adds that Judas 
in particular asked) “Is it I?” No one seems to have suspected 
Judas ; and perhaps Christ’s 2d «izas was heard by Judas alone. 
Jesus may have had Judas next to Him on one side, S. John being 
on the other. For zpacoew of doing evil comp. Jn. iii. 20, 21; 
Rom. vii. 19 ; Thue. iv. 89. 2. 

24-30. The Strife as to Precedence. 


Disputes of this kind had taken place before, and the frequent records of 
them are among the abundant proofs of the candour of the Evangelists. Buta 
comparison of the records seems to indicate that the tradition respecting them 
had become somewhat confused ; and it is possible that what was said on one 
occasion has in part been transferred to another. Comp. Mt. xviii. 1-5 ; Mk. 
ix. 33-37; Lk. ix. 46-48; Jn. xiii. 14: also Mt. xx. 24-28; Mk. x. 41-45; 
Lk. xxii. 24-27. Of these last three passages, Mt. and Mk. clearly refer to the 
same incident, which took place considerably before the Last Supper. If Lk. 
merely knew what Jesus said on that occasion, but did not know the occasion, 
he would hardly have selected the Last Supper as a suitable place for the incident. 
He probably had good reason for believing that a dispute of this kind took place 
at the supper. Jesus may have repeated some of what He had said on a similar 
occasion ; or Lk. may have transferred what was said then to the present occa- 
sion. But there is no note of time or sequence in ver. 24, where 6é xal simply 
indicates that something of a different character (6¢) from what precedes also 
(xal) took place: and it is scarcely credible that this strife occurred after Jesus 
had washed their feet and instituted the eucharist. More probably the dispute 
arose respecting the places at the paschal meal—who was to be nearest to the 
Master; and the feet-washing was a symbolical rebuke to this contention. 
Here ver. 27 appears to have direct reference to His having washed their feet. 


24, *Eyévero 8éxai “But there arose also”: see small print on 


XXII. 24-27.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 01 


ili. 9. The 5é€ perhaps contrasts this discussion with that as to 
which of them was the traitor. But we are not sure that the one 
discussion came closely after the other. 

gidoverxia, ‘‘Contentiousness.” Here only in N.T., but quite 
classical. It is sometimes coupled with Baoxavia (4 Mac. i. 26; 
M. Antonin. iii. 4), and easily comes to mean “contention” 
(2 Mac. iv. 4; Jos. Azz. vii. 8. 4). 

Soxet etvar, “Is accounted, allowed to be”—omnium suffragits ; 
implying who ought to be so accounted. See Lft. on Gal. i. 6. 

peiLev. Not quite equivalent to the superlative, which would 
have indicated several gradations from lowest to highest.: The 
comparative implies only two,—a superior and all the rest as 
equals: ix. 46; Mk. ix. 34. Win. xxxv. 4, p. 305. 

25. Almost verbatim as the account of the earlier strife pro- 
voked by James and John (Mt. xx. 25; Mk. x. 42). For xuptedou- 
ow comp. Rom. xiv. 9; 2 Cor. 1. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 15. Mt. and Mk. 
use the compounds, xataxvp. and xarefovcral. 

evepyérat Kahodvtat Peculiar to Lk. The phrase evepyérys 
Baoréos aveypddy (Hat. viii. 85. 4: comp. Thuc. i. 129. 2; Esth 
li. 23, Vi. 1) is not parallel. There persons who have done special 
service to the sovereign are formally credited with it. Here it is 
the sovereign who receives the title of Benefactor (ze. of his 
country, or of mankind) as a perpetual epithet ; e.g. some of the 
Greek kings of Egypt. Comp. 2wrip, Pater patriz, Servus ser- 
vorum. For less formal instances of the title see McClellan and 
Wetstein. 


It is better to take xaXofyrat as middle: ‘‘ claim the title,” hume titulum 
stbi vindicant (Beng.). This is what the disciples were doing. 


26. 6 peiLwy. He who is really above the rest. True great- 
ness involves service to others: obdesse oblige. For ywéoOw, “let 
him prove himself to be,” comp. x. 36, xii. 40, xvi. II, xix, 17. 
We have an echo of this 1 Pet. v. 3. For vedtepos as duaxovav 
comp. Acts v. 6, 10: vewrepov dé A€yer Toy Ecxarov (Euthym.), the 
lowest in rank. 


The Latin Versions have junzor (ef Vulg.), minor (acfi,i), minus (d, 
petxpbrepos D), 7uvenzs (r), adulescentzor (bq). 

For 6 iyovpevos we have gud preest (abfq), guz princeps est (tr), qui 
primus est (l), gui preesens est (e), gui ducatum agzt (d), gui precessor est 

ulg.). In N.T. 77yéoua: means ‘‘ lead ” only in pres. part., and most often 
in Lk. It is used of any leader, ecclesiastical or civil (Acts vii. 10, xiv. 12, 
xv. 22; Mt. ii. 6; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24). In LXX it is freq. 


27. éy Sé év péow Spay. This need not be confined to the 
feet-washing (Euthym. De W. Godet, Hahn), nor to the fact that 
the person who presided at the paschal meal served the others 
(Hofm.): and the reference to either is uncertain. The whole of 


502 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII. 27-30 


Christ’s ministry was one of service to His disciples (Nosz. Weiss). 
For év p.éow see on Vill. 7. 
Strauss, Keim, and others regard the feet-washing recorded in Jn. as a mere 


fictitious illustration of Lk. xii. 37 and xxii. 27 (Z. /. § 86, p. 542, ed. 1864 ; 
Jes. of Naz. Vv. p. 341 0). 


28-30. Nearly the whole of this is peculiar to Lk. But comp. 
Mt. xix. 28. Having rebuked them for raising the question of 
precedence among themselves, Jesus shows them wherein the 
privileges which they a// enjoy consist, viz. in their standing by 
Him in His service to others. He gives preference to none. 

28. of Siapepernkdtes pet euod. The idea of persistent loyalty 
is enforced by the compound verb, by the perfect tense, and by 
the preposition (Lft. on Gal. ii. 5): “‘who have perseveringly re- 
mained with Me and continue to do so” (i. 22; Heb. i. 11; 2 Pet. 
iil. 4). 

). Tois metpacpots pov. The trials to which He had been sub- 
jected during His ministry, and especially the latter portion of it. 


These, even to Him, were temptations to abandon His work. — 


Comp. axpt xarpod (iv. 13). 

kay® StatiWepar suiv. ‘And JZ on My part, in return for your 
loyalty, hereby appoint to you dominion, even as My Father 
appointed to Me dominion.” As in i. 33, Baovdcia is here 
“dominion” rather than “a kingdom”: comp. xxili. 42; Rey. 
xvii. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 12. See on xi. 2. Comp. ty Bactrciay eis 
viv ‘Adeéavopar di€Gero (Jos. Anz. xiii. 16. 1). 


A connexion with 6:a@jxn (ver. 20) is doubtful. The xawvh diabjcn is 
with all the faithful; this dcari@ewac seems to be confined to the Apostles. 
The verb does not necessarily mean ‘‘covenant to give” or ‘‘assign by be- 
quest,” which would not fit dué@ero here, but may be used of any formal 
arrangement or disposition (Hdt. i. 194. 6; Xen. Anad. vii. 3. 10; Mem. 
i. 6. 133 Cyr. Ve 2. 7 Q)e 


830. tva goOynte Kat mivnte. This is the purpose of conferring 
regal power upon them. Some make from xafws to BacwAciov a 
parenthesis and render, “I also (even as My Father appointed to 
Me dominion) appoint to you that ye may eat and drink,” ete. 
So Theophyl. Nosg. Hahn. But Baowrelav belongs to both d:a- 
7iMeuor and défero, So Euthym. De W. Mey. Weiss, Schanz, 
Godet. 

éxt tis tpaméLys pou. The Jews commonly regarded the 
Messianic Kingdom as a banquet: comp. xiii. 29, xiv. 15. Czbus 
potusque, tlle de quo alias aicitur, Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt 
Justitiam (Bede). 

xaOyo0€ éxt Opdvwvr. The meaning of the promise is parallel to 
what precedes. As they have shared the trials, so they shall share 
the joy; and as they have proclaimed the Kingdom to Israel. so 


XXII. 30, 81.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 503 


they shall exercise royal power over Israel, judging them accord- 
ing as they have accepted or rejected what was proclaimed. Comp. 
r Cor. vi. 2,°3:; Rev. xx, 4. 


As to the verb, the readings are very various: xadlfecde (EF K MSU 
VXT A), KxaSlonobe (H), xadéfnobe (D). But the choice lies between 
xa0jjc0e (B* T A), which must depend upon iva, and ka@jcecbe (8% A B?G 
LQ), which rather gives this as an independent promise. In Mt. xix. 28 
xa0joeo0e is right, and may have been transferred to this passage, as dwdexa 
has been in some authorities (§ D X, abcd flq) with Opévw». 


81-34. The Prediction of Peter’s Denial. 


Both the prediction and the fulfilment are given in all four Gospels. A 
comparison of them shows that Lk. and Jn. are quite independent of one an- 
other and of the other two. We have three separate narratives. Lk. agrees 
with Jn. (xiii. 36-38) in placing the prediction in the supper-room. Mt. 
(xxvi. 30-35) and Mk. (xiv. 26-30) place it on the way from the room to 
Gethsemane. It is not likely that it was repeated; and the arrangement of 
Lk. and Jn. is to be preferred. But some make three predictions ; two in the 
room (Lk. being different from Jn.), and one during the walk to Gethsemane. 
Godet regards a repetition of such a prophecy zzpossible de supposer (ii. p. 476). 


81. Lk. makes no break in Christ’s words, but it is possible 
that a remark of Peter’s, such as Jn. records, is omitted. The 
apparent want of connexion between vv. 30 and 31 has led to the 
insertion «ize d2 6 Kvpios (8 A D Q X, Latt.), as if to mark the be- 
ginning of a new subject. BLT, Sah. Boh. Syr-Sin. omit. Bede 
suggests by way of connexion, /Ve gloriarentur undecim apostolt, 
suisve viribus tribuerent, quod soli pene inter tot millia Judxorum 
dicerentur in tentationibus permansisse cum Domino, ostendtt et eos 
si non juvantis se Domini essent opitulatione protecti, eadem procella 
cum ceteris potuisse contert. 

Xipwv Zinwy. The repetition of the name is impressive: see 
on x. 41. Contrast Iézpe ver. 34. The whole of this address 
(31, 32) is peculiar to Lk. It tends to mitigate Peter’s guilt, by 
showing how sorely he was tried. Lk. “ever spares the Twelve.” 
See pp. 146, 172, 511. 

6 Zatavds é&mTHAcaTo Spas. “Satan obtained you by asking” 
(RV. marg.) ; “procured your being surrendered to him,” as in 
the case of Job (i. 12, ii. 6): exoravit vos. Neither fostulavit 
(Tert. Cypr.), nor guzsivit (c), nor exfetivit (f Vulg.) is adequate. 
The aorist of the compound verb necessarily implies success in the 
petition. In class. Grk. the mid. would generally have a good 
sense: “obtained your release by entreaty.” See instances in 
Wetst. and Field As in x. 18 Jesus is here communicating a 
portion of His divine knowledge. See notes there and on viii. 12. 
Note the plur. éyas, which covers both ov and ois ddeAdovs 
cov. Satan was allowed to try them all (Mt. xxvi. 31, 56; Mk. 
xiv. 27, 50); Juda non cantentus (Beng.). Comp. Apost. Const. 
vi. 5.4: Zest. XIL, Pair. Benj. iii. 


§04 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIT. 81-34. 


toi owlacat, See oni. 74: “in order to sift.” Neither verb 
nor substantive (oivov, “a sieve, winnowing riddle”) is classical. 
They are probably colloquial for xécxwov and kooxwevew, which 
survives in modern Greek. In Amos ix. 9 we have Auxuay. See 
Suicer, s.z. 


Ut ventilet (ef ff,ilqr, Ambr.), wt vexaret (Cypr. Aug.). ut cerneret (d, 
Tert. Hil.), ad cernendum (c), ut cribraret (Vulg.). 


82. éyh Sé edeyOnv. See onv. 12. The éyw Sé€ and the aor. 
are in marked contrast to Satan and his request. We may regard 
e€ntynoaro and éde740nv as contemporaneous. 

mept god. As being the leader on whom so much depended, 
and as being in special need of help, as his fall proved. Jesus 
prayed for all (Jn. xvii. 2, 9, 15, 17). The interpolator of Ignatius 
understands this as a prayer for all: 6 denfeis py exdetrew TH 
miatw T&v amroctéAwy (Smyrn. vii.) For iva after déouae comp. 
IX. 40, xxi. 36. 

pi} éxdXtry. “Fail not utterly, once for all.” Defect in Petro 
H evepyea THs wlotews ad tempus: at ew labefactavit, non extinxit 
(Grotius). 

kat oJ. Answering to eyo dé Christ has helped him: he 
must do what he can for others. 

Tote émuotpeas otypicov. ‘When once thou hast turned 
again, stablish” (RV.). It is unnatural to take wore with orypicov 
(Mey. Weiss) ; and it is a mistake to make émortpéwas a sort of 
Hebraism (Ps. Ixxxv. 7, émuorpépas Cwdoes jas), meaning “in 
turn” (Grot. Maldon. Beng.), a use which perhaps does not occur 
in N.T. See Schanz. On the other hand, ‘‘when thou art con- 
verted” is too strong. It means turning again after a temporary 
aberration. Yet it is not turning ¢o the brethren, but turning from 
the fault that is meant. It is not likely that the transitive sense is 
meant: “convert thy brethren and strengthen them”: comp. 
i. 16, 17; Jas. v. 19, and contrast Acts ili. 19, xxvili. 27; Mt. 
xiii. 15; Mk. iv. 12. See Lxfos. Times, Oct. 1899, p. 6. 

This metaphorical sense of ornplfecv is not classical: comp. Acts xviii. 23 ; 
Rom. i. 11, xvi. 25; Jas. v. 8, etc. The form orjpicov for orjpiEor is late. 


Some Latin texts add, without any Greek authority, e¢ rogate ne intretis 
in temptationem (a bce fi,iq). 


33. pera ood. First, with enthusiastic emphasis: “ With Zhee 
I am ready.” The impulsive reply is thoroughly characteristic. As 
at the feet-washing (Jn. xili. 6, 8) he has more confidence in his 
own feelings than in Christ’s word; but this version of the utter- 
ance is less boastful than that in Mt. xxvi. 33 and Mk. xiv. 29. 

84. Aéyw cou, Mérpe. For the first and last time in the Gospels 
Jesus addresses him by the significant name which He had given 
him. Rock-like strength is not to be found in self-confidence, but 


XXII. 34-86.) THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 505 


in humble trust in Him. Mt. and Mk. have ’Apjy Aéyw oor: Jn. 
’"Aunv div A. co. The solemn earnestness with which this 
definite prediction was uttered made a deep impression upon all. 

onpepov. Mt. has tavry rH vuxti. Mk, has both. The new 
day began after sunset. See iv. 40, v. 13, and xxiii. 38 for similar 
cases in which Mt. and Lk. have different parts of an expression, 
of which Mk. has the whole. 

ob dwrycer . . . GAéxtwp. The third of the four Roman watches 
was called dAexropopwvia, gallicinium (Mk. xiii. 35; Apost. Const. 
Vili. 34. 1; Strabo, vii. 35; Geopon. 1153). The expression here is 
equivalent to “Before this night is past.” Mk. alone mentions 
the double cock-crowing, and the fact that Peter, so far from being 
silenced, kept on protesting with increased vehemence. 


és Tpls pe arapvyoy eldévat. This is the true reading (§ BLMQXT), 
The pls is in all four Gospels: the e/dévar in Lk, alone. 


85-38. §The New Conditions; the Saying about the Sword. 
The opening words mark the beginning of a new subject; and 
there is no indication of any connexion with what precedes. It is 
one more proof of His care for them. Precautions and equipments, 
which would have hindered them in more peaceful times, have 
become necessary now. What He formerly forbade, He now en- 
joins. Dominus non eddem vivendi regula persecutionis quam pacis 
tempore discipulos informat (Bede). 

35. “Ote améotetha buds dtep B. The wording suggests a direct 
reference to x. 4, which is addressed to the Sevendy. In ix. 3, 
where similar directions are given to the Zze/ve, the wording is 
different. In the source which Lk. is here using the words given 
in x. 4 would seem to have been addressed to the Apostles. 
There may have been some confusion in the tradition respecting 
two similar incidents, or in the use which Lk. makes of it. 


This use of Sorepeiy rivos occurs here only in N.T. Comp. Jos. Avs. 
ii, 2, 1. The pass. is thus used xv. 14; Rom, iii. 23; Heb. xi. 37. 


86. 6 pi exov. This is ambiguous. It may look back to 
6 éxwv Badddvrov: “He that hath no pwrse, let him sell his gar- 
ment and buy a sword” (Cov. Gen. Rhem. RV.). Or it may 
anticipate pdxapay: “He that hath no sword, let him sell his 
garment and buy one” (Tyn. Cran. AV.). The former is far the 
more probable. Only he who has no money or wallet, would sell 
the most necessary of garments (iudruoy, vi. 29), to buy anything. 
But even the tudtov is less indispensable than a sword; so 
dangerous are their surroundings. ‘For henceforth the question 
with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they 
possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve 
their lives” (Cyril Alex. Sy. Com. ad /oc., Payne Smith, p. 680). 


506 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII, 36-38. 


Christ implies that His Apostles will have to rely upon their own 
resources and to confront deadly hostility. Comp. Jn. xv. 18-21. 
Christ does not mean that they are to repel force by force ; still 
less that they are to use force in spreading the Gospel. But in a 
figure likely to be remembered He warns them of the changed 
circumstances for which they must now be prepared. 

37. héyo yop jpiv. The yap introduces the explanation of the 
change from ore dzéoretXa to viv. 


7d yeypappévov. Comp. xx. 17; 2 Cor. iv, 13. More often we have 
Th yeypappéva: xviii. 31, xxi. 22; ‘Acts xiii. 29; Rev. xx. 12, xxii. I9. 

The érz before rodro (T AA TI, "Vulg. Am.) is spurious. It is the kind of 
insertion which versions are apt to make for the sake of completeness: ‘‘ must 
yet be fulfilled.” For Set see on iv. 43 and ix. 22, 


év éyoi. Therefore the disciples must expect no better treatment 
than the Master receives (Mt. x. 24; Jn. xv. 20, xiii, 16: see on 
Vi. 40). 

Kai peta dvénov. The xaé is part of the quotation: kat éy ois 
dvépos éoyioGn (Is. lili. 12): “evew with the transgressors” is 
incorrect. In AV. dyvoyos is translated in five different ways: 
“transgressor” (Mk. xv. 28); “wicked” (Acts ii. 23; 2 Thes. 
il. 8), “without law” (1 Cor. ix. 21), “lawless” (1 Tim. i. 9), 
unlawful 7i(2 Pet. i. §): 

kal yép. An extension of the argument: “and what is more.” 
This fulfilment is not only necessary,—it is reaching its conclusion, 
“is having an end” (Mk. iii. 26). The phrase 7éAos éxew is used 
of oracles and predictions being accomplished. See Field, O¢. 
Norvic. iii., and comp. teréAeorat (Jn. xix. 30). 

Om. yép D, ade fi,il Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Failure to see the point of the 
‘yép would cause the omission. 

7 mept éuot. This form of expression Is found in no other Gospel ; 
but the plur., 7@ mepl €uo, occurs xxiv. 19, 27 and is freq. in Acts (1. 3, 
XViii. 25, xxiii, 11, 15, xxiv. 10, 22, xxvili. 15, 31: in viii. 12, xix. 8, xxvill. 
23 the 7d is probably spurious). Some texts (AXT'A etc.) have rh here 
for 76: ea guxz sunt de me (Vulg.) ; ea guz de me scribta sunt (Cod. Brix.). 
But 76 (" BD LQ) has been altered to the more usual expression, perhaps 
to avoid the possible combination of 7d wepi €uod TéAos. There is no need to 


understand ‘yeypayyévoyv, Much which concerned the Christ had never been 
written. 


88. pdéxatpar. Chrysostom has supposed that these were two 
knives, prepared for the slaughtering (ver. 8) or carving of the 
paschal lamb. In itself this is not improbable: but nowhere else 
in N.T. does paxaipa mean a knife. Assuming that swords are 
meant, these weapons may have been provided against robbers on 
the journey to Jerusalem, or against attack in the city. Peter had 
one of them, and may have been the speaker here. It is one 
more instance of the Apostles’ want of insight, and of the 
Evangelists’ candour: comp. Mk. viii. 17. Schleiermacher points 


XXII. 38.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 507 


out that the obscurity of the passage is evidence of its genuine- 
ness and originality (p. 299, Eng. tr.). 

‘Ikavév €or. Satis est (cfi,q Vulg.), sat est (ai), sufficit 
(bdflr) which last perhaps represents dpxet (D). The reply is 
probably the equivalent for a Hebrew formula for dismissing the 
subject (Deut. iii. 26), not with impatience, but with satiety or 
sorrow. Comp. éws tod viv ixaydv (1 Mac. ii. 33). But even if it 
means that two swords are a sufficient quantity (“They are enough 
for you,” Syr-Sin.), it intimates that the subject is dismissed. 
Bede is hardly right in his view: duo gladi sufficiunt ad testi- 
montium sponte passi salvatoris, i.e. to prove that he could have 
resisted, had He pleased. If the words apply to the swords, they 
are spoken with a sad irony (povovxi dvayeAd, Cyril Alex.), as 
meaning, not that the two weapons will be sufficient for the pro- 
tection of the company, but that none at all are required: they 
have grievously misunderstood Him.! Zs gi/t nicht mehr mit dem 
leiblichen Schwerdt fechten, sondern es gilt hinfort leiden um des 
Evangelit willen und Kreuz tragen: denn man kann wider den 
Teufel nicht mit Eisen fechten ; darum ist Noth AXes dran zu setzen, 
und nur das geistliche Schwerdt, das Wort Gottes, zu fassen (Luth.). 

XXII. 39-XXIII. 49. The Passion. In this part of the 
narrative of the Passion proper, z.e. from the Agony to the Death, 
the particulars which are wholly or mainly peculiar to Lk. are 
Xxii. 51, xxiii. 6-12, 27-32 [34], 40-43, 46: and these particulars 
are among the most precious details in the history of the Passion. 

‘39-46.)The Agony in the Garden. With regard to the 
omission of nearly the whole of the last discourses (Jn. xiv.—xvii.) 
Godet remarks that the oral tradition was not a suitable vehicle 
for transmitting such things: Céfazent des trésors quwun ceur élite 
pouvait seul garder et reproduire. On the other hand Jn. omits 


1The Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface vit!., A.D. 1302, bases the double 
power of the Papacy on this text. The following are among the most remark- 
able passages: /eztur Ecclesiz, unius, et unice unum corpus, unum caput, non 
duo capita quasi monstrum, Christus setlicet et Christi vicarius, Petrus Petrique 
Successor... . In hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet 
et temporalem evangelicis dictis instruimur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis: Ecce 
gladii duo hic; z# Leclesta scilicet, cum Apostoli loquerentur ; non respondit 
Dominus nimis esse, sed satis... . Uterque ergo in potestate Ecclesiz, spiritualis 
scilicet gladius, et materialis: sec ts quidem pro Ecclesia, tlie vero ab Ecclesia 
exercendus ; tlle sacerdotis, 1s manu Regum et militum; sed ad nutum et 
pattentiam sacerdotis. Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, et temporalem 
auctoritatem spirituali subject potestate . .. sic de Ecclesia et ecclesiastica 
potestate verificatur vaticinium Jeremiz [i. 10]: Ecce constitui te hodie super 
gentes, et regna, etc. gua seguuntur.... Porro subesse Romano Pontificz 
omnem humanam creaturam declaramus, dicimus et definimus ommnino esse de 
necessitate salutis (Raynald. xxiii. p. 328; see Milman, Za¢. Chr. Bk. xi. ch. 
ix. ; Robertson, Bk. vii. ch. v. ; Stubbs’ A/oshezm, ii. p. 261 ; Zoeckler, Hanaé 
a. Theol. Wiss. ii. p. 167 ; Gregorovius, Stadi Rom, v. p. 562; Berchtold, Dz 
Bulle Unam Sanctam, Miinchen, 182% 


508 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII 39-42, 


the whole of this scene, although there is a clear reference to it 
xviii. 11. Lk.’s narrative once more differs considerably from that 
of Mt. (xxvi. 30-41) and of Mk. (xiv. 26-38), which are almost 
verbatim the same; and it is very much shorter. It is in vv. 39, 
42, 46 that Lk. comes most closely to the other two. 

89. éfehOdv. From the house. 

kata 76 €@os. Peculiar to Lk. (i. 9, ii. 42): comp. moAAdxus 
ow7xOn “Incots éxet (Jn. xviii. 2). It was no longer necessary 
to keep Judas ignorant of His movements; so He follows His 
usual practice. Lk. omits the tyvyoavtes which records the 
chanting of the second part of the Hallel. Jn. alone mentions the 
passing of the gloomy ravine of the Kidron (xviii. 1). 

40. tot témov. Lk. and Jn. call it “the place,” Mt. and Mk. 
xopiov and add the name I'efoypavei = “ oil-press.” The traditional 
Gethsemane is a questionable site. Both Robinson and Thomson 
would place the garden higher up the Mount of Olives. The 
tradition is continuous from the age of Constantine, but cannot 
be traced to any earlier source. Stanley inclines to accept it as 
correct (Siz. & Pal. p. 455). See D.&.? art. “Gethsemane.” 

Npocedxeobe. This first command to pray (comp. ver. 46) is 
recorded by Lk. alone. It is given to the eleven; the second is 
to the chosen three, whom Lk. does not notice particularly. 

41. dreondoOy. Avulsus est (Vulg.). ‘“ He was drawn away ” 
by the violence of His emotion, which was too strong to tolerate 
the sympathy of even the closest friends: comp. Acts xxi. 1. It 
seems to be too strong a word to use of mere separation: but 
comp. 2 Mac. xii. 10, 17; 4 Mac. iii. 18; Is. xxviii. 9. 


Goel AlGov Bodrjv. Mt. and Mk. have yuxpév. Comp. dcel rbtou Body 
(Gen, xxi. 16): Aelaero Soupds épwiy (Hom. J, xxiii. 529). The acc. in Jn. 
vi. 19 is not quite parallel. 


eis ta ydvara. Lk. alone mentions this. Standing was the 
more common attitude (xviii. 11; Mt. vi. 5; Mk. xi. 25; 1 Sam. 
i. 26): but on occasions of special earnestness or humiliation 
kneeling was more natural (1 Kings viii. 54; Ezra ix. 5; Dan. vi. 
10). In N.T. kneeling is the only attitude mentioned ; perhaps 
in imitation of Christ’s example here: Acts vii. 60, ix. 40, xx. 36, 
xxl. 5; Eph. iii. 14. The phrase reac ra yévara is not classical, 
but comp. gexza ponere. See on ill. 21: the imperf. mpoonuxeto 
implies continued prayer. 

42. Mdrtep, et Rover, mapéveyke. We might have expected ei 
GéXers (comp. eav OédAys, V. 12), because of 7d O€Anpwa in the next 
sentence. But this is one of the passages which tend to show 
that in N.T. 6é4w indicates mere choice, while BovAouwa: implies 
deliberate selection (Mt. i. 19). T’1e ltter is far less common in 
N.T. In LXX there is not much diffeic:.. 


XXII. 42, 43.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 509 


This is the only passage in which the Attic Bove: for Bor Xp is well sup- 
ported. Such forms are found in some texts Mt. xxvii. 4; Jn. xi. 40; 
Acts xvi. 31, xxiv. 8. 

In Dacde fh ph 7d OAAnua. . « yevéoOw precedes el Bovher . . . epod, 
dv being omitted. Several of the same authorities have a similar inversion 
ix. 62. 

The reading mapeveyxetv (AQXTAA) tums the prayer into an un- 
finished pleading: ‘‘ Father, if Thou be willing to remove this cup from 
Me.”—Comp. Exod. xxxii. 32, BDT Versions, and Orig. support map- 
éveyxe. Vulg. transfer calicem istum; Tert. transfer poculum istud ; but he 
may be quoting Mk. xiv. 36 (De Orat. iv.) Boh. Sah, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sia. 
have ‘‘let this cup pass.” 


mapéveyke TodTo Td ToTHpioy dw éyod. “This cup” and the 
address “Father” are in all three accounts. In O.T. the meta- 
phor of “cup” for a person’s fortune, whether good or bad, is 
very common (Ps. xi. 6, xvi. 5, xxilil. 5, xxv. 8, etc.) In N.T. 
specially of the sufferings of Christ (Mk. xiv. 36; Jn. xviii. 11; 
Mt. xx 22, 23; Mk. x. 38, 39): comp. Rev. xiv. 10, xvi. I9, 
xvii 6, In class. Grk. zapadépew zorypiov would mean to place 
a cup at the side of a person, put it on the table near him 
(Hdt. i. 119. 5, 133- 3; Plat. Ae. i. p. 354). But in Plutarch 
mapadépew is used in the sense of “lay aside, remove” (Camill. 
xli.). Elsewhere in N.T. it is used of leading astray (Heb. xiii. 9 ; 
Jude 12). : 

7d O€Anpd pou. Either BovAnua or BovAy might have been 
used of the Father’s will, but less suitably of Christ’s (Eph. i. 11). 
The ywéoOw is peculiar to Lk. It recalls yevnfijrw 1d OéAqud 
cov (Mt. vi. 10), which Lk. omits (xi. 2). For mAyjvy comp. x 
ri, 14, 20. 

43, 44. As in the case of vz. 19, 20, we have to consider whether this 
passage is part of the original text. For the evidence see the additional note 
at the end of ch. xxiii. One thing is certain. ‘‘It would be zmosstble to 
regard these verses as a product of the inventiveness of the scribes. They can 
only be a fragment from the traditions, written or oral, which were, for a time 
at least, locally current beside the canonical Gospels, and which doubtless in- 
cluded matter of every degree of authenticity and intrinsic value. These verses 


and the first sentence of xxiii. 34 may be safely called the most precious among 
the remains of this evangelic tradition which were rescued from oblivion by the 


« 


scribes of the second century” (WH. ii. App. p. 67). It matters little whether | 
Lk. included them in his narrative, so long as their authenticity as evangelic™ 
tradition is acknowledged. In this respect the passage is like that respecting 


the Woman taken in Adultery. 


43. doy. “Was visible” to the bodily eye is obviously 
meant. It is against the context and the use of the expression in 
other places to suppose that internal perception of an invisible 
spiritual presence is intende¢ Lk. is fond of the expression 
(i. 11, ix. 31, xxiv. 34; Acts il. 3, vii. 2, 26, 30, 35, ix. 17, xiii. 31, 
xvi. 9, xxvi. 16; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 5-8), which Mt. and Mk. use 
once each (xvii. 3, ix. 4), and Jn. thrice (Rev. xi. 19, xii. 1, 3), but 


510 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII. 48, 44. 


not in his Gospel. The én’ odpavos would not have been added 
if the presence of the Angel was invisible. 

éviocxtwv. Elsewhere in N.T. only Acts ix. 19, of bodily 
strengthening: comp. 2 Sam. xxii. 40; Ecclus. 1. 4; and this may 
well be the meaning here, but without excluding the strengthening 
of soul and spirit. Either would tend to produce the other; and 
the sight of His Father’s messenger would strengthen both body 
and spirit. Commentators have speculated as to what the Angel 
said (see Corn. 4 Lap. ad /.). There is nothing to indicate that he 


spoke. Hobart remarks of évcyvew that, outside the LXX “its . 


use in the transitive sense, ‘to strengthen,’ is confined to Hippocrates 
and St. Luke” (p. 89). In Acts ix. 19 the true reading is probably 
evirxvOn.4 

év aywvia. Here only in N.T. Field contends that fear is 
the radical notion of the word. The passages in which it occurs 
in LXX confirm this view: 2 Mac. iii. 14, 16, xv. 19; Comp. 
dywvav Esth. xv. 8 [v. 1]; Dan. i. 10; 2 Mac. iii. 21. It is fre- 
quently coupled with such words as ¢dfos, déos, ppiky, etc. For 
examples see Field, Of. JVorv. iii. p. 56. It is, therefore, an agony 
of fear that is apparently to be understood. Mk. has adypovety 
with éxfayPetcbar, Mt. with Avretofar.—éxtevéotepov. “ More ex- 
tendedly,” and hence “ more persistently.” This seems to be 
parallel to the wimrew éri rpdcwrov aitod (Mt.) and émt ris yas 
(Mk.). Heb. v. 7 probably refers specially to this. Comp. éxrevés 
of prayer, and éxréveta of worship and service, Acts xii. 5, Xxvi. 7. 

44. cet OpdpBor atpatos kataBaivovres. Even if xataBatvovros 
(x V X, Vulg. Boh.) be right, the words do not zecessarily mean 
more than that the drops of sweat in some way resembled drops of 
blood, e.g. by their size and frequency. But it is not likely that no 
more than this is intended, or that the words are a metaphorical 
expression, like our “tears of blood.” ‘That Justin in referring to 
the statement omits aipatos—idpas doet OpopBor xarexetro (/7y. 
ciii.}—does not prove that he did not understand actual blood to 
be meant. Rather it shows that he considered that O@pdéyPor, 
“clots,” sufficiently expressed “drops of blood.” ? 


The expression ‘‘ bloody sweat” is probably a correct interpretation: and 
the possibility of blood exuding through the pores seems to be established by 
examples. Comp. Arist. Hzs¢. Anzm. ili. 19. De Mezeray states of Charles Ix. 





3 Even Meyer is disposed to admit that this strengthening by an Angel is 
legendary, because it is ‘‘ singular” (absonderlich), and not mentioned by Mt. 
or Mk., who has Peter to rest upon. Let us admit that perhaps Lk. did not 
mention it either. That does not prove that it is legendary; unless we are 
prepared to admit that the ministry of Angels after the temptation, which is 
analogous to this, and which is attested by both Mt. (iv. 11) and Mk. (i. 13), is 
legendary also. 

2Tn class. Grk. @p4u80s, both with and without aYuaros, may mean a drop 
of blood (Aesch. Zum. 184; Chotph. 533, 5463; Piato, Crt. p. 120 A.). 


XXII. 44-47. ] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 511 


of France that ‘‘ During the last two weeks of his life (May 1574) his consti- 
tution made strange efforts . . . blood gushed from all the outlets of his body, 
even from the pores of his skin; so that on one occasion he was found bathed 
in a bloody sweat.” See W. Stroud, Zhe Physical Cause of the Death of 
Christ, 1847, pp. 85-88, 379-389. Schanz cites Lonarz, De sudore sanguinis, 
Bonn, 1850, and Langen, Dze J/etzten Lebenstage, p. 214. Why is aluaros 
added, if no afua accompanied the /5pés? It would be visible in the moon- 
light, when Jesus returned to the disciples: «bz guzdem non solis oculis, sed 
quast membris omnibus ievesse videtur (Bernard, /n Dom. Palm, Serm. 
iii, 4). 


45. Lk. is much more brief than Mt. and Mk., but adds dvacras 
ard THs mpooevyyns and also azo trys Avrys. Prolonged sorrow , 
produces sleep, and in mentioning this cause of their slumber Lk. 
“once more “spares the Twelve.” For dvaords see on i, 39, and 
for dao of the cause see on xix. 3, xxi. 26, xxiv. 41. 

46. Ti xa@evSere; The special address to Peter is omitted. 

mpocetxeoe iva py. All three assign this to the first return 
from prayer. No words are recorded of the second, and Lk. 
omits both it and the third. These movements are some evidence 
as to Christ’s human knowledge. Would He have come to the 
disciples, without waking them (as seems on the second occasion 
to have been the case), had He known beforehand that they were 
asleep? And does not etpicxev, which is in all three, almost 
imply that until He came He did not know, as in the case of the 
barren fig tree (Mk. xi. 13)? 


tva py. ‘That... not” (Wic. RV.) rather than “lest” (Tyn. 
Gen, Rhem. AV.). Comp. ver. 40, where the constr. is equivalent, although 
not identical. -In both places we have the pres. imperat. of continuous 


prayer. 


47-53. The Traitor’s Kiss and the Arrest of Jesus. Mt. xxvi. 
47-56; Mk. xiv. 43-52; Jn. xviii. 2-11. It would have been 
possible for Jesus to have evaded Judas by not going to the usual 
place (ver. 40) or by leaving it before he arrived. The sneer of 
Celsus, that Jesus went to the garden “to make His escape by 

_disgracefully hiding Himself,” is out of place. By going and re- 

maining where Judas must find Him, He surrendered Himself 
voluntarily. As Origen says, “At the fitting time He did not 
prevent Himself from falling into the hands of men” (Ceé:. 
ii, 10). 

a "Ett adtod Aadodvtos . .. Sxdos Kat... lovdSas els Tov 
\déSexa. These nine words are in all three accounts. He was 
still addressing the disciples when He was interrupted by a hostile 
multitude led by one of the Twelve. See Blass on Acts x. 44. 

pudijoat adrév. Lk. omits that it was a prearranged sign; also 
the xaipe “‘Pa@@ei and the fact that an ostentatiously affectionate 
kiss (xatepiAncev) was given. Jn. does not mention the kiss. 


512 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII 47-51, 


His narrative shows how unnecessary tl.e treacherous signal was, 
for Jesus came forward and declared Himself.! 

48. piAjpar. First, with great emphasis. “Is it with a kiss 
that thou betrayest?”  Osculo Filium hominis tradis? hoc est 
amoris pignore vulnus infligis, et caritatis officio sanguinem fundis, 
et pacis instrumento mortem irrogas, servus Dominum, discipulus 
prodis magistrum, electus Auctorem (Bede). Jesus does not say, 
s betrayest thou Me?” but “ betrayest thou the Son of Man?” 
He reminds Judas that it is the Messiah whom he is treating with 
this amazing form of treachery. Mt. words Christ’s rebuke very 
differently : “Eraipe ef’ Oo Tapel. Mk. omits the rebuke. 

49. Kupie, et matdgouev év paxaipy; Lk. alone records this 
question. It is said that “since it was illegal to carry swords on 
a feast-day, we have here another sign that the Last Supper had 
not been the Passover.” But if the pdxapa was a large knife 
used for killing the lamb, this would not hold: see on ver. 38. 


For the constr. see on xiii. 23 and Burton, § 70, 169: and for the form 
paxalpy see on xxi. 24. 


50. efs. All three use this indefinite expression: Jn. alone 
tells us that it was the impetuous Peter, who acted without waiting 
for Christ’s reply. When Jn. wrote it was not dangerous to dis- 
close the name of the Apostle who had attacked the high priest’s 
servant. And John alone gives the servant’s name. As a friend 
of the high priest (xvill. 15) he would be likely to know the name 
Malchus. Malchus was probably taking a prominent part in the 
arrest, and Peter aimed at his head. 

TS ots adtod 7d Sefidv. Mt. has @riov, Mk. and Jn. ardpuoy. 
Jn. also specifies the ~7gh¢ ear. Mt. records the rebuke to Peter, 
“Put up again thy sword,” etc. 

51. “Edte €ws tovrov. The obscurity of the saying is evidence 
that it was uttered: an invented utterance would have been 
plainer. If addressed to the disciples (as drroxpieis implies, for 
He is answering either their question or Peter’s act), it probably 


means, ‘‘Suffer My assailants to proceed these lengths against 


Me.” If addressed to those who had come to arrest Him, it 
might mean, “Tolerate thus much violence on the part of My 
followers,”—violence which He at once rectifies. It can hardly 
mean, ‘‘ Allow Me just to touch the sufferer,” for He is still free, 
as ver. 52 implies: the arrest takes place at ver. 54. Some even 


1 It was perhaps in memory of this treacherous act that the ‘kiss of 
peace” was omitted in public service on Good Friday. Tertullian blames 
those who omit it on fast-days which are less public and universal. But dve 
Paschz, quo communis et quasi publica jejuni religio est, mertto deponimus 
osculum (De Orat, xviii.) At other times the omission would amount to a 
proclamation that one was fasting, contrary to Christ’s command. 


XXII. 51-53. ] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 513 


make éws rovrov masc. “to go as far as Malchus”: but comp. 
Lev. xxvi. 18. In either of these last cases we should have had 
pe after ere. For édw see on iv. 41. 

idoato adtov. Lk. the physician alone records this solitary 
miracle of surgery. A complete restoration of the ear is meant 
and required. ‘He touched the eav,” not the place where the 
ear had been. Peter’s act had seemed to place Jesus in the 
wrong and to justify His enemies: He was shown to be the 
Leader of dangerous persons. To undo this result it was necessary 
to render Malchus uninjured, and to surrender without resistance. 
This confirms the interpretation given above of ‘Eare éws tovrov : 
they are a public command to the disciples not to impede the 
arrest. Comp. Jn. xviii. 36. Marcion omitted vv. 49-51. 


In the Classical Review of Dec. 1893 Dr. E. A. Abbott proposes to resolve 
this miracle into a misunderstanding of traditional language. The ingenuity is 
unconvincing, See Additional Note p. 545. 


52. tods mapayevonevous én aitév. These are not fresh arrivals, 
but portions of the dyAos of ver. 47 more particularly described. 
There is nothing improbable in the presence of dpyxepets, who are 
mentioned by Lk. alone. Anxiety about the arrest, which might 
be frustrated by a miscalculation of time, or by the people, or by 
a miracle, would induce them to be present. For otpatnyods tod 
iepod see on ver. 4. Jn. tells us that Roman soldiers with their 
chief officer were there also (xvili. 3, 12). Jesus addresses the 
Jewish authorities, who are responsible for the transaction. 


The reading én’ airy (ABDLTXT ATI), “against Him” (RV.), is to 
be preferred to mpds airév (§ GH RA), *‘to Him” (AV.) 3; but Tisch., with 
his bias for §&, adopts the latter. 


“Qs emt Anorhy. First with emphasis. These words down to 
xa’ ypépav are the same in all three accounts. Jesus is not a 
bandit (x. 30, xix. 46). The fact that they did not arrest Him 
publicly, nor without violence, nor in the light of day, is evidence 
that the arrest is unjustifiable. Perhaps éJ\wv means “clubs,” as 
Rhem. from fustibus (Vulg.): comp. Jos. B./. ii. 9. 4. 

53. Every point tells; “‘ Every day there was abundant oppor- 
tunity; you yourselves were there ; the place was the most public 
in the city; and you made no attempt to touch Me.” The 
sentence is certainly not a question (Hahn). Tisch. does not 
make even the first part, from as to évAwy, a question: so also 
Wic. and Cran. 

&\N’ atry éoriy, “But the explanation of such outrageous 
conduct is not difficult. This is your hour of success allowed 
by God; and it coincides with that allowed to the power of 
darkness.” So Euthym. dpa év 7 Sivapu ehaBere car’ euod OedOev: 

33 


514 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI1. 53, 54, 


comp. Jn. viii. 44. Perhaps there is an intimation that the night 
is a fit season for such work: comp. Jn. xiii. 30, and see Schanz, 
. 520. 

és ° é€ouoia tod oxdtous. See Lft. on Col. i. 13, where the same 
phrase occurs. He points out that éfovaia is sometimes used of 
unrestrained and tyrannical power, as well as of delegated and 
constitutional power. But the latter may be the meaning here. 
It is by Divine permission that Satan is 6 dpywy Tod Koopou 
tovrov (Jn. xiv. 30). 

Lk. omits the flight of a@// the disciples, which Mt. and Mk. 
record. This is further evidence, if any be needed, that Lk. 
exhibits no aximus against the Twelve. See on ver. 45 and vi. 13. 

54-62. Peter’s Denials are recorded in detail by all four 
Evangelists, who tell us that three denials were predicted (Mt. 
xxvi. 34; Mk. xiv. 30; Lk. xxii. 34; Jn. xiii. 38), and vecord three 
denials (Mt. xxvi. 70, 72, 74; Mk. xiv. 68, 70, 71; Lk. xxii. 57, 
58, 60; Jn. xvili. 17, 25, 27). As already pointed out, Lk. and 
Jn. place the prediction during the supper, Mk. and Mt. on the 
road to the Mount of Olives, which is less likely to be correct, if 
(as is probable) the prediction was made only once. 


As to the ¢hree denials, all four accounts are harmonious respecting the first, 
but differ greatly respecting the second and third. The first denial, provoked 
by the accusation of the maid, seems to have led to a series of attacks upon S. 
Peter, which were mainly in two groups; and these were separated from one 
another by an interval, during which he was not much noticed. Each of the 
four narratives notices some features in these groups of attacks and denials: but 
it is unreasonable to suppose that they profess to give the exact words that were 
spoken in each case. See on viii. 24 for Augustine’s remarks on the different 
words recorded by the three Synoptists as uttered during the storm on the lake. 
Alford on Mt. xxvi. 69, and Westcott in an additional note on Jn. xviii., have 
tabulated the four narratives: see also Rushbrooke’s Synoptzcon, p. 114. With 
these helps the four can readily be compared clause by clause ; and the independ- 
ence of at least three of them soon becomes apparent. This independence 
results from truthfulness, and the variations will be a difficulty to those only who 
hold views of verbal inspiration which are contradicted by abundant phenomena 
both in O.T. and N.T. ‘‘St. Luke adds force to the episode by placing all 
three denials together. With St. John, however, dramatic propriety is sacrificed 
to chronological accuracy” (Lft. Bzblical Essays, p. 191). BPRS ee 


54. Xud\aBértes. All four use this verb in connexion with the 
arrest of Jesus. It is freq. in Lk., especially of the capture of 
prisoners: Acts i. 16, xii. 3, xxiii. 27, xxvi. 21. Jn. tells us that 
they bound Him and took Him zpés “Avvay zpérov, #.e. before His 
being examined by Caiaphas, as recorded Mt. xxvi. 57-68 and 
Mk. xiv. 53-65. Both these examinations were informal. They 
were held at night, and no sentence pronounced in a trial held at 
night was valid. Hence the necessity for a formal meeting of the 
Sanhedrin after daybreak, to confirm what had been previously 
decided. This third ecclesiastical trial is mentioned by all the 


XXII. 54, 55.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 515 


Synoptists (ver. 66; Mt. xxvii. 1; Mk. xv. 1); whereas Jn. gives 
only the first (xviii. 12), and shows that it was in connexion with 
it that Peter’s denials took place. Lk. can hardly be said to give 
either of the first two hearings. He says that Jesus was taken to 
the high priest’s house, and was there denied by Peter and 
ill-treated by His captors; and then he passes on to the formal 
assembly of the Sanhedrin; but there is no mention of any 
previous examination. With the help of the other narratives, 
however, we obtain an account of all three hearings. The space 
devoted by all four to these Jewish and Roman trials seems to be 
out of proportion to the brief accounts of the crucifixion. But 
they serve to bring out the meaning of the crucifixion by exhibit- 
ing the nature of the Messiahship of Jesus. Why was Jesus con- 
demned to death by the Sanhedrin? Because He claimed to be 
the Son of God. Why was He condemned to death by Pilate? 
Because He claimed to be the King of the Jews. 

Hyayov Kat eionyayov. “They led Him (away) and brought 
Him.” The latter verb is a favourite with Lk. See on ii. 27. 


DT, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. some Old Lat. texts Vulg. Aeth. omit xal elovy- 
ayov. 


eis Thy oikiav Tod dpxtepéws. It is impossible to determine 
whether this means of Annas or of Caiaphas (comp. iii. 30 and 
Acts iv. 6): but the narrative of Jn. (xviii. 12-24) renders it. 
highly probable that Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas shared 
the same palace, occupying different parts of it. As Lk. records 
no examination of Christ before either of them, we do not know 
whether he connects Peter’s fall with the hearing before Annas (as 
Jn.), or with that before Caiaphas (as Mt. and Mk.). All that he 
tells us is that Jesus was kept a prisoner and insulted between the 
night arrest and the morning sitting of the Sanhedrin. Possibly 
his authorities told him no more. 

AKohovGer paxpdbev. This following at a distance is noted by 
all three. Quod sequitur, amoris est, quod e longo, timoris. 

55. mepiapdvrwv. Here only in N.T. Comp. 3 Mac. iii. 7. 
This would be April, at which time cold nights are not uncommon 
in Jerusalem, which stands high, 


ADRXTAATI have aydvtwr, which is peculiar to Lk. in the sense of 
kindling: viii. 16, xi. 33, xv. 8; Acts xxviii. 2. For év péow see on viii. 7. 

éxd@yto 6 Métpos pécos aitdv. Cod. Am. and other MSS. of Vulg. 
have erat Petrus in medio corum, All Greek texts have éxé@yro. Where 
did Jerome find #v? See on ix. 44. 

Here only in N.T. is cuvxaifw intransitive: contrast Eph. ii. 6. DG, 
bedefff,ilq Vulg. Arm. Syr-Sin. have wepixaOicdvtwy. But a (conseden- 
a supports NABLRX etc. (cuvka@icdvtwy): and this is doubtless 


nght. 


516 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII 56-61. 


56. maSicxn. All four use this word of the person who 
began the attack on Peter. Jn. says that she was the doorkeeper. 
It was not Pilate, nor any of the Sanhedrin, nor a mob of soldiers, 
but a single waiting- maid, who frightened the self - confident 
Apostle into denying his Master. Note the res. 

mpds Td d@s. Comp. Mk. xiv. 54. For drevioaca, which is a 
favourite word with Lk. (iv. 20 and often in Acts), Mk. has 
euBr(Qpaca, 

kal otos ody aito jy +The meaning of the xai is not obvious: 
as well as who? Possibly S. John, who was present and known to 
the household. With otv airé jv comp. xxiv. 44; Acts xiii. 7. 
The fondness of Lk. for cv here comes out. Mk. and Mt. have 
pera, and Jn. has é« trav pabyrav. 

57. Ovdx oida adtév. For aitovy Mk. and Mt. have the less 
explicitly false rf Xéyers. Lk. has 6 Aéyets ver. 60, where they have 
tov avOpwrov. Here Lk. again mitigates by omitting the oath 
which accompanied the second denial (Mt.), and the cursing and 
swearing which accompanied the third (Mt. Mk.). This first 
denial seems to have been specially public, gupooOev ravrwv (Mt.). 

58. peta Bpayd. Lk. alone states that a second denial followed 
close on the first. For érepos Mt. has a\An, Mk.  waudioxy, Jn. 
elrov. For dvOpwie see on xii. 14. 

59. Siactdons doet dpas pias. Mk. and Mt. say pera puxpov. 
The classical diéoryue is peculiar to Lk. (xxiv. 51; Acts xxvii. 28. 
In LXX Exod. xv. 8; Prov. xvii. 9, etc.). 

&Xos Tis. Jn. says a kinsman of Malchus; Mt. and Mk. say 
the bystanders. In this third attack all four call attention to the 
positiveness of the speaker; because he had seen Peter in the 
garden with Jesus (Jn.), and because of Peter’s Galilean Acadia 
(Mt.). The Galileans are said to have mixed the gutturals in 
pronunciation, and to have had in some respects a peculiar 
vocabulary. 

Sucyxuptfero. Classical, but only here and Acts xii. 15 in bibl. 
Grk. 

60. tapaxpypa. All four note how quickly the crowing 
followed upon the third denial. Lk. has his favourite Tapaxphpa 
and Mk. his favourite «dvs: comp. v. 25, Vill. 44, 55, XVIll. 43. 
But the graphic ét Aadodvros adtod 1s given by Lk. alone. 

eddvncev Gdéxtwp, No article: “a cock crew.” A few cursives 
insert 6. 

The objection which has been raised, that the Talmud pronounces fowls 
which scratch on dungheaps to be unclean, is futile. In this the Talmud is 
inconsistent with itself: and Sadducees would have no scruples about what was 


not forbidden by the written law. Certainly Romans would have no such 
scruples. 


61. otpagets. Lk. alone preserves this incident Peter is 


XXII. 61-66.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 517 


probably still in the court, while Jesus is inside. It is improbable 
that Jesus was present when Peter denied Him. He may have 
been visible through door or window, but scarcely within hearing. 
The otpadels évéBXeev may have taken place as He was being 
led to or from the examination before Caiaphas. 

onpepov. Lk. alone repeats this part of the prediction (ver. 34): 
otherwise all three have the same words. Jn. omits Peter’s recol- 
lection of the warning and also his bitter weeping. 


The ojuepor is omitted in A DI A Aand several Versions, but it is attested 
by § BK LMT, Boh. Sah. Syr-Sin. Aeth. b ff, 1. 

62. WH. bracket this verse, which is wanting in abeff,il*r. But 6 
Tlérpos (ATA A, Vulg.) is no doubt an addition both here and Mt. xxvi. 75. 


63-65. The First Mocking. As Lk. omits the examination by 
Caiaphas, it is impossible to determine whether he places this 
mocking before or after it. He knows that Jesus, after being 
denied by His chief Apostle, was insulted by His captors, and then 
taken before the Sanhedrin. His omissions seem to show that 
he is making no use of Mt. or Mk. Comp. Mt. xxvi. 67, 68; Mk. 
xiv. 65. 

es. ot cuvéxovtes attév. Not members of the Sanhedrin, but 
the servants or soldiers in whose charge Jesus had been left. Here 
only is cvvéxew used of holding fast a prisoner. Comp. viii. 45 ; 
xix. 43. 


Sépovres. Comp. xii. 47, xx. 10, Of the five expressions which are used 
in describing these blows each Evangelist uses two: Lk. dépovres and walcas ; 
Mt. ékod\dgicay and épdmicavy; Mk. xodagifew and fparlcpacw fdaBor. 
Comp. the treatment of the Apostles, Acts v. 40; and of S. Paul, Acts 
xxi. 32, xxiii. 2. Lk. omits the spitting. All three have the Mpodyrevaov. 

65. érepa wodAd. Comp. iii. 18. The statement here is made by Lk. 
only. On the combination of participle and verb, describing the same action 
from different points of view, see Burton, § 121. 


66-71. The Third Jewish Trial. The Sanhedrin could hold 
no valid meeting before daybreak, and what had been irregularly 
done in the night had to be formally transacted after dawn.! 
Comp. Mt. xxvii. 1; Mk. xv. 1. But Lk. is quite independent ; 
whereas Mt. and Mk. have much in common. 

66. as éyéveto jpépa. All three note the early hour: ecidis 
mpwt (Mk.), zpwias d€ yevouevns (Mt.). The expression #pépa 
yiverat is characteristic of Lk. Comp. iv. 42, vi. 13; Acts xii. 18, 
XV1. 35, XXIll. 12, XXV1l. 29, 33, 39. 

76 mpeoButéprov tod aod, dpxepets te Kat ypappateits. The 
meaning is that the three component parts of the Sanhedrin met, 

1 Synedrium magnum sedet a sacrificio jugi matutino ad sacrificium juge 
pomeridianum (Maimonides, Sanhed, iii.) ; sesstones judicit sunt instituendss 
mane, non autem postquam homo edit et bibet (Synops. Soh. p. 56 n. 2). 


§18 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIL 66-70. 


and that Jesus was brought before the whole assembly. Mt. and 
Mk. also give the three parts as well as the whole. The place of 
meeting is not given by any. That portions of what is recorded of 


one examination should resemble portions of what is recorded of 


another is natural. Before Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin 
the same questions would be asked. At this last and only valid 
trial everything of importance would have to be repeated. It is 
probable that 76 ovvédpiov airdv is here used in a technical sense 
for the Great Council or Sanhedrin. Comp. Acts iv. 15, v. 21, 27, 
34, 41, Vi. 12, 15, XXL 30, xxii: 1, 6, 15, 20, 28, suaaeOumsee 
Herzog, art. Synedrium; Keim, Jes. of Naz. vi. pp. 63-72; 
Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. pp. 553-557; ist. of J. NV. ch. v.; Farrar, 
L. of C. TI. Excurs. xiii.; and above all Schiirer, 7, P. in T. of 
J. C. II. i. pp. 163-195, where the literature of the subject is 
given. 


Note the re xal, which neither Mt. nor Mk. has. In the Gospel Lk, 
never has re without «al following: ii. 16, xii. 45, xxi. II, etc. 


67. Ei od et 6 Xpiotds, etmov hptv. Sz tu es Christus, dic nobis 
(Vulg.). The ei is conditional, and the emphasis is on 6 Xprords, 
not on ov, This is the simplest construction, and is adopted by 
Luth. Wic. Rhem. RV. De W. Schanz, Mey. Nosg. Go. Hahn, ete. 
Others prefer, “Art Thou the Christ? tell us”: so Erasm. Tyn. 
Cran. Gen. AV. Or, “Tell us whether Thou art the Christ”: 
Ewald and some others. The question. was vital; and in the 
examination recorded by Mt. and Mk. it was coupled with “ Art 
Thou the Son of God?” (ver. 70). 

"Edy Gpiv . . . dmoxpiOfAte. This part of Christ’s reply is 
peculiar to this occasion, whereas what follows (ver. 69) is almost 
verbatim as in Mt. and Mk. The meaning seems to be, “If I 
tell you that I am the Christ, ye will assuredly not believe ; and if 
I try to discuss the question, ye will assuredly refuse to do so.” 
Note that here the proceedings are conducted by the Sanhedrin as 
a body ; not, as in the earlier trial, by the high priest alone (Mt. 
xxvi. 62, 63, 65; Mk. xiv. 60, 61, 63). For the addition 4 amo 
Avonre see additional note at the end of ch. xxiii. 

69. dd tod viv Sé€. His glorification has already begun: Jn. 
xli. 31. Hoc ipsum erat iter ad gloriam (Beng.) Comp. the 
parallel Acts vii. 56, where see Blass. 


The 6é is thus placed because dré 700 voy is virtually one word. TR. with 
TAATI, Sah. omits dé, and Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. substitute yép. The Latin 
Versions are again interesting in their rendering of dé Tot viv: a@ modo 
(acdr), ex hoc Vulg.): see oni. 48 and also on v. 10. 


70. etzay S¢ wdvtes. The wdvres is again peculiar to Lk. 
(vii. 35, xix. 37, xx. 18): in Mt. and Mk. the high priest asks the 


~~ 


XXII. 70, 71.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 519 


question. In the allusion to Dan. vii. 13 they recognize a claim 
to Divinity, and they translate 6 vids rod dvOpdrov into 6 vids Tod 
@cod. But it is not clear whether by the latter they mean the 
Messiah or something higher. 

pets Aéyere Ste €ys cipt. Both here and Jn. xviii. 37 “that I 
am” (English Versions, Godet) is more probable than “ decause I 
am” (Luth. Weiss, Hahn). A third possibility, to make the whole 
a question, is worth noting. For other cases of ambiguous 67: 
comp. i. 45, Vil. 16, xix. 31. 

_ 71. Axovcapev. “We have heard” that He claims to be the 
Messiah and the Son of God. It is quite natural that in accusing 
Him to Pilate nothing is said about this charge of blasphemy,— 
one of great weight with the Sanhedrin, but which the heathen 
procurator would not appreciate. 

XXII. 1-7. The Civil Trial before Pilate. Comp. Mt. 
XxXVil. 2, 11, 12; Mk. xv. 1-3; Jn. xviii. 28-37. Lk. assumes 
that his readers know that Jesus was condemned to death by the 
Sanhedrin. But it was necessary to have Him condemned by the 
Roman /rocurator also, in order that the sentence might be 
executed, and without delay, by him who possessed péxpe tod 
kreivev efovaiav (Jos. B. /. ii. 8. 1).1 It is almost certain that at 
this time the Jews were deprived of the right of inflicting capital 
punishment. They sometimes did inflict it and risked the conse- 
quences, as in the case of S. Stephen: and the Romans sometimes 
found it expedient to ignore these transgressions (Jn. v. 18, 
Vii. I, 25, Vili. [5,] 59; Acts v. 33, xxl. 31, xxvi. 10). A good deal 
would depend upon the character of the execution and the humour 
of the procurator. But besides Jn. xvilil. 31 we have the express 
statement, guadraginta annis ante vastatum templum ablata sunt 
judicia capitalia ab Israéle (Bab. Sanh. f. 24, 2). See Blass on 
Acts vii. 57. 


But it is quite possible that in some of the cases in which the Jews are repre- 
sented as trying to put persons to death, the meaning is that they wished to 
hand them over to the Romans for execution. See notes on Jn. xviii. 31 in 
Camb. Grk. Test. In the accounts of this Roman trial we have the attempts of 
the Jews to induce Pilate to condemn Jesus contrasted with Pilate’s attempts to 
save Him from execution. The Sanhedrin hoped that Pilate would confirm their 
sentence of death ; but Pilate insists on trying the case himself. This he does 


1 The expressions jus g/adiz and fotestas gladii are of later date. Professor 
Chwolson argues that the Sadducees were dominant when Jesus was condemned 
to death. It was against the law as maintained by the Pharisees to sentence a 
criminal and execute him within a few hours. The law required an interval of 
forty days for the collection of evidence on his behalf. It was the Sadducees, 
the servile upholders of Roman authority, who took the lead against Christ. 
They were the wealthy class, who lived on the temple sacrifices and dues, and 
therefore were bitter antagonists of a Teacher whose doctrine tended to the 
reform of lucrative abuses (Das dizte Passamahi Christi, etc., Appendix). 


520 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII 1, 2, 


in his mpacrwpiov or palace (Mt. xxvii. 17; Mk. xv. 163 Jn. xviii. 28, 33, 
xix. 9). But we do not know where this was. A little later than this (Philo, Zeg. 
ad Gaium, § 38, ed. Mangey, ii. 589) the Roman governor resided in ‘‘ Herod’s 
Przetorium,” a large palace on the western hill of the city. But Pilate may have 
used part of the fortress Antonia, the site of which is supposed to be known; 
and some conjecture that a chamber with a column in it is the scene of the 
scourging. For the rather considerable literature concerning Pilate see Leyrer 
in Herzog, art. Pélatus, sub fin., and Schiirer, Jew7sh People, etc. I. ii. p. 82, 
who refers especially to G. A. Miiller, Pontzus Pilatus, Stuttgart, 1888. 


1. dévactav Grav 73 wAHP0s. All three words are characteristic: 
see on i. 39, on iii. 21, and on i. 10. The whole body of the 
Sanhedrin (airév) is meant, not including the populace, who at 
this point are not mentioned in any of the accounts. 

éml tov MeAGtov. Neither in order to shift the responsibility 
on to him, nor to avoid disturbing the feast with a Jewish execu- 
tion, nor to ensure death by crucifixion, but simply in order to get 
their own sentence of death confirmed. 

2. Lk. is alone in giving clearly the three political charges, 
which could not fail to have weight with Pilate: (1) seditious 
agitation, (2) forbidding tribute to Tiberius, (3) assuming the title 
of king. The point of qpgavto seems to be that they began to do 
all this, but Pilate interposed: comp. v. 21, xii. 45, xiil. 25, xix. 37. 
The todtov is probably contemptuous: “this fellow” (Tyn. Cov. 
Cran. Gen. AV.). Whether cépayey refers to “catching in the 
act” or to “discovering by investigation” is not certain. 


The form e¥papev is well attested here (B* LT X) as dvedpay in ii. 16. In 
2 Sam. xvii. 20 we have edpay with 7\@ay and zapf\Oay. See small print 
on i. 59. 


Stactpédovra 15 €Ovos Hpav. They imply that the perversion of 
the nation was seditious. The excitement caused by Christ’s 
ministry was notorious, and it would not be easy to prove that it 
had no political significance. For the verb comp. ix. 41; Acts 
xiii. 10, xx. 20; Exod. v. 4; 1 Kings xviii. 17, 18. 

Kovovta dpous Kaloapt Si8dvar. Jesus had done the very 
opposite a day or two before (xx. 25). But this second charge 
seemed to be of one piece with the third. If He claimed to be a 
king, He of course would forbid tribute to a foreign power. Vulg. 
wrongly changes the dare of Lat. Vet. to dart. 

Xpiotov Bacihéa. “ Messias, a king” (comp. ii. 11) is more 
probable than either “King Messias,” or, “an anointed king” 
(Schegg). They add BaciAea that Pilate may know the political 
significance of Xpucrds (Schanz). It is here that the charge made 
before Pilate approximates to the charge on which they condemned 
Jesus (xxii. 69-71). But with them it was the theological signi- 
ficance of His claim that was so momentous: and this Pilate 
could not regard. 


XXIII. 2-7.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION §21 


Epiphanius (arc. 316, 317, 346) tells us that after diacrpégorra rd 26vos 
Marcion inserted xal xaraXtovta Tdv véuov Kal tods rpogjras ; and that after 
kw\tovTa . . . dtddvas he added kal dmocrpégovta tas ‘yuvaixas xal Ta 
téxva. The former of these interpolations is found in various MSS. of 
the Old Latin, ef solventem legem [nostram] et prophetas (bce ff,ilq), and in 
some MSS. of Vulg. (EQ R), while the latter is added to ver. 5 in some Old 
Latin texts: see below. Prof. Rendel Harris attributes these insertions to 
Marcion himself, who was himself accused of these things, 7exts & Studies, 
ii. I, p. 230. See small print note on xvi. 17. 


8. 50 ef 6 Bacieds tHy “loudatwy; All four record this question, 
and in exactly these words. The pronoun is emphatic, implying 
that His appearance was very much against such a claim. 

X0 Aéyets. Like the reply in xxii. 70, this is probably not inter- 
rogative. It condenses a conversation given at greater length by 
Jn., without whose narrative that of the three is scarcely intelligible. 
It would be extraordinary that Pilate should simply hear that Jesus 
admitted that He claimed to be King of the Jews, and at once de- 
clare, “I find no fault in this man.” But a conversation with Jesus 
had convinced Pilate that He was a harmless enthusiast. He did 
not claim to be a king in the ordinary sense. 

4, xat tols dxhous. The first mention of them. The procession 
of the Sanhedrin would attract a crowd; and perhaps some had 
come to ask for the customary release of a prisoner (Mk. xv. 8). 


afriov = alria is peculiar to Lk., and is always combined with a negative: 
vv. 14, 22; Acts xix. 40, 


5. éicyuov. Intransitive, as in 1 Mac. vi. 6, so that nothing 
is to be understood: “they were the more urgent,” invalescebant 
(Vulg.). ‘They became more definite in their accusations, because 
Pilate took the matter too easily. 

kaQ’ SAns THs “lovdaias. Comp. iv. 44. Whether this means 
the whole of Palestine (i. 5, vii. 17 ; Acts ii. 9, x. 37, xi. I, 29) or 
Judza proper (ii. 4; Acts i. 8, viii. 1), is uncertain. In either 
case we have allusion to an activity of Jesus in southern Palestine 
of which Lk. records very little. 

Gmd THs FadtNaias. Vutrix seditiosorum hominum (Grot.). The 
€ws GS¢ may have special reference to the triumphal entry into 
Jerusalem ; but it may also refer to previous visits of Jesus to the 
city. 

With the constr. dptduevos dd. . . ws comp. Acts i. 22; Mt. xx. 8; 
[Jn. viii. 9]. The very words xa6’ Sdys rijs "Iovdalas, dptduevos awd tijs 
Tad:Aalas occur Acts x. 37. 

At the end of ver. 5 Cod. Colb. adds et fiizos nostros et uxores avertil a 
nobis, nom enim bapiizatur sicut nos; and Cod. Palat. has the same down to 
nobis, and continues eu enim baptizantur sicut et nos nec se mundant. 

The retention of ‘‘ Jewry” in AV. here, Jn. vii. 1, and Dan. v. 13 (where the 
same word is translated *‘ Jewry” and “‘ Judah ”) was probably an oversight. 


7. émvyvots. Freq. in Lk. in the sense of ‘‘ thoroughly ascertain” ; 
vii. 37 ; Acts xix. 34, xxii. 29, xxiv, 11, xxviii. I, etc. 


§22 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X XIII. 7-10. 


dvérneppev adtév. The verb may be used in the legal sense of 
“sending wp” to a higher authority or “referring” to another 
jurisdiction, like remitto, which Vulg. has here and vv. 11, 15: 
comp. Acts xxv. 21; Jos. B. J. il. 20.5; Philo, De Creat. Prin. 
viii. But in vv. 11, 15 the meaning “send Jack” is more suitable, 
and may be retained here: comp. Philem. 11. If Jesus originally 
belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, sending Him to Herod was 
sending Him éack; just as the man Jorn blind is said to recover 
his sight (dévaBXérew), because sight is natural to man (Jn. 
ix. 15, 18). It was perhaps chiefly in order to get rid of a difficult 
case, or to obtain official evidence from the tetrarch, that Pilate 
sent Jesus, rather than merely to conciliate Antipas. Justin says 
that Pilate xapufomevos Sedepévov tov “Incoty éreupe (77y. cili.) ; and 
comp. Vespasian allowing Agrippa to have the prisoners who came 
from the latter's kingdom (Jos. B. /. iii. 10. 10). Herod had 
come up to keep the feast, and probably occupied the palace of 
the Asamoneans (B. /. ii. 16. 3; Anz. xx. 8. 11). 

8-12. §The Trial before Herod. It has been noticed by 
Schleiermacher that its omission by Jn. is no serious objection to 
its authenticity. ‘‘ The transaction is too circumstantially detailed 
to admit a doubt, and our reporter seems to have had an acquaint- 
ance in the house of Herod who supplied him with this fact, as 
John seems to have had in the house of Annas” (S. Luke, p. 304, 
Eng. tr.). Joana, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward (viii. 3), 
would be a likely source of information: see on viii. 3 and 
XxlV. 10, 

8. iv b\w, 73 dkoverv, HAmLev. These expressions indicate 
the continuance of the wishing, hearing, and hoping: comp. ix. 9. 
Such curiosity is not gratified any more than the demand for signs 
from heaven (xi. 29). With é txavav xpdvev comp. xpdévw ixava 
(viii. 27 ; Acts viii. 11), xpdvous ixavovs (xx. 9). 


TR. follows ARTAA in reading é€ lxavod, to which HMXII add 
xpévov. But SBDLT, Sah. Am. give the plural. 


9. adtds Sé oddev atexpivato alto. “But He on His part 
answered him nothing.” The language and tone of Antipas 
showed that he was in no condition to profit by anything that 
Jesus might say: see on iii. 1. “He regarded Jesus as a sight.” 
Yor émexpivato comp. iil. 16. 


Cod. Colb. adds guasi non audiens: and Syr-Cur. has the more remark- 
able guasé non tbi erat. This may have suggested the possibly Docetic touch 
in the Gospel of Peter, “‘ He held His peace as z# no wise feeling pain.” Both 
Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. for év Aéyors lkavo?s have ‘‘in cunning words.” Syr- 
Sin. omits vv. 10, II, 12. j 

10. iorjxercav. This, and not elorjxew, is the pluperf. of lorapas. 
The evidence varies in the fourteen places; hut lorijxew is never a mere 


XXIII. 10-12. ] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION §23 


itacism, and is freq. in LXX. Even B, which often prefers e: to 4, supports 
lorjxe five times (WH. ii. App. p. 162). 

evtéves. ‘* At full stretch, vehemently,” in N.T. only here and Acts 
xviii. 28: comp. Josh. vi. 8; 2 Mac, xii. 23. In Latin texts we have 
tnstanter (c), fortiter (d), vehementer (ax), constanter (fVulg.). Apparently 
they had kept silence while Herod was questioning Jesus; but His silence 
had exasperated them. 


11. éfouleviicas . . . eumatgas. These participles are put first 
in their clauses with emphasis. Herod’s baffled curiosity takes 
this despicable revenge: comp. xvill. 9; Gal. iv. 14. We need 
not suppose that Antipas formally pronounced Him innocent, 
but that he did not condemn Him to death. He evaded the 
responsibility, as Pilate tried to do. In the Gosfel of Peter Herod 
sentences the Lord ; and when “ Joseph, the friend of Pilate and 
of the Lord,” asks Pilate defore the crucifixion for the Lord’s body, 
Pilate sends to ask Herod for it. The chief guilt throughout is 
transferred from Pilate to Herod and the Jews. 

aby Tois otpatevpacw. Probably a guard of honour: cum mili- 
tibus suis (f). It was one of these perhaps that he had sent to 
behead John in the prison (Mk. vi. 27; Mt. xiv. 10). It was fitting 
that the prince who had murdered the Baptist should mock the 
Christ. 

épmaigas. He treats Him as a crazy enthusiast, and gives a 
mock assent to His claim to be a king, which the scribes no 
doubt reported. Latin texts have zvriszt (c), inludens (d), deludens 
(r), delusum (a), inlusit (Vulg.). 

éoOijTa Aapmpdv. “A bright robe,” sp/endidum (c), rather than 
‘a white robe,” candida (a), alba (f Vulg.). That it was a toga 
candida to mark Him as a candidate for royalty, is not likely: it 
was to mark Him as already king. The epithet does not indicate 
its colour, but its “gorgeous” character: comp. Jas. ii. 2, 3. In 
Acts x. 30 it is used of angelic apparel. Elsewhere in N.T. éo@ys 
occurs only xxiv. 4; Acts i. 10, xii. 21: comp. 2 Mac. viii. 35, 
xi. 8. 

12. éyévovto Sé pikor. Although Pilate failed in the attempt to 
transfer the responsibility to Herod, yet something was gained by 
the transaction. In the Gosfe/ of Peter Herod addresses him as 
"AdcAdé IHetAGre. The cause of enmity may easily have been some 
dispute about jurisdiction. 


Ephrem conjectured that the enmity arose through Pilate sending soldiers 
to punish the chief men of Galilee who had been the guests of Herod when he 
put the Baptist to death, and that this was the occasion when the blood of 
Galileans was mingled with their sacrifices. For the importance of this 
strange idea as a link in the evidence respecting the Dzatessaron see Rendel 
Harris in Contemp. Review, Aug. 1895, p. 279. 

D transposes the clauses, and has dyélg for éx6pa: Byres dé év dnila 6 II. 
a. 6'H. éyévovro pltot ev airy 7. Hu. So also Cod. Colb. csem essent autem 
tn dissenstonem pil. et her. facti sunt amici tn illa die. 


wee 


§24 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII 13-16, 


13-25. The vain Attempts of Pilate to avoid Sentencing Jesus 
to Death. Comp. Mt. xxvil. 15-26; Mk. xv. 6-15. Pilate’s first 
two expedients had failed: (1) telling the Jews to deal with the 
case themselves ; (2) sending it to Herod. He now tries two 
others: (3) to release Him in honour of the feast ; (4) to scourge 
Him and let Him go. Roman dislike of a gross injustice to an 
innocent person possibly influenced him ; but perhaps the chief 
motive was the superstitious fear, produced by his wife’s dream 
and confirmed by Christ’s bearing and words. Jn. states that he 
again and again declared Jesus to be innocent (xviii. 38, xix. 4, 6). 
In wording Lk. is not very similar to either Mt. xxvii. 15-26 or 
Mk. xv. 6-15 ; but the substance of all three is the same. Jn. is 
more full and quite independent ; he distinguishes the conversa- 
tion inside the pvxzorium with Jesus and outside with the Jews. 

13. cuvkaheodpevos. See on ix. 1. Pilate in taking the matter 
in hand again summons not only the hierarchy, whose bitterness 
against Jesus he knew, but the populace, whom he hoped to find 
more kindly disposed, and able to influence their rulers. 

14. dmootpépovta tév Kady. ‘Seducing the people from their 
allegiance.” He condenses the three charges in ver. 2 into one. 
Note the emphatic éy# and the évézov tudv: the one anticipates 
‘Hp#dys, and the other implies that they know with what thorough- 
ness the case has been investigated. 

dvaxptvas. In its forensic sense of a judicial investigation the 
word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts iv. 9, xii. 19, xxiv. 8, 
xxvill. 18). But the classical use for a preliminary examination 
must not here be pressed. See Dict. of Grk. and Rom. Ant., art. 
Anakrisis ; Gardner and Jevons, pp. 574 ff. Pilate’s od0év eGpoy is in 
direct contradiction to their evpapev (ver. 2). For airvov see on ver. 4. 

15. add o88€ “HpwSys. Therefore the friendship between Herod 
and Pilate is hardly “a type of Judaism and Heathenism leagued 
together to crush Christianity.” Both were willing to set Jesus 
free. What we see here 1», however, an anticipation of what not 
unfrequently happened during the first three centuries, viz. that 
Jewish mobs incited the heathen against the Christians. 

dvérreppev yap aitév mpds Has. This reading agrees better with 
“No, nor yet Herod” than does “ For I sent you to him,” and the 
external evidence for it is decisive. : 


For the text, § BK LM TTI and some cursives; for dvereupa yap duds 
mpds abrév, AD XT'AA. Versions are divided, Latt. against AXgyptt., while 
Syrr. including Syr-Sin. have the conflate, ‘‘ For I sent Flim to him.” Wic. 
had a Lat. text such as Cod. Brix. am remisit eum ad nos, for he renders 
‘‘ For he hath sent Him again tous,” although Vulg. has nam remzsi vos ad 
zllum. Some Latin authorities combine both readings. 


éotly wempaypévov aito. “Is done dy Him,” or “hath been 
done 4y Him” (RV.). The former is perhaps better, as giving the 


XXII 15-19.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 525 


result of the trial before Herod. The dat. indicates that what is 
done stands to the person’s credit; Win. xxxi. 10, p. 274: XXiv. 35 
is not parallel. ‘Nothing worthy of death is done unto Him” 
(AV.) is scarcely sense. Cov. has “There is brought upon Him 
nothing that is worthy of death.” For the periphrastic perfect see 
Burton, § 84. 

16. maiSedoas. He uses a light word to express the terrible 
fiagellatio, in order to excuse the injustice to his own conscience, 
and to hide his inconsistency from them. It is no punishment, 
but a chastisement to warn Him to be more circumspect in future. 
But the priests would see that a judge who was willing to inflict 
this on an innocent person could be induced by further pressure to 
inflict death. Scourging was sometimes fatal: Hor. Sav. i, 2. 41; 
comp. i. 3. 119. Comp. Deut, xxii, 18. 


17. This verse is wanting in ABK LTT, Sahe a, while D, Syr-Cur. 
Syr-Sin. 2th. insert it after ver. 19. It is a gloss based on Mt. xxvii. 15 
and Mk. xv. 6. Alf. urges that dvdy«nv elyev is an idiom in Lk.’s manner. 
But Lk. uses it only once (xiv. 18), as do also S. Paul (1 Cor. vii. 37) and 
S. Jude (3). Homeeoteleuton (ANATKHN, ANEKPATON) might explain 
the omission in one family of witnesses; but against this is the widespread 
omission, and the fact that the gloss is inserted in two different places. The 
passage reads more naturally without the gloss than with it. 

18. avéxpayov. We have the I aorist iv. 33, viii. 28; Mk. i. 23, vi. 49: 
and in LXX both aorists are common. Here ADXT have dvéxpagay, 
NBLT advéxpayov. Here only in bibl, Grk. does tayrA7Gel occur. 


Aipe toitov. E medio tolle istum: Acts xxi. 36, xxii. 22; Mt. 
XXIV. 39; Jn. xix. 15: comp. Acts vill. 33. They are perhaps re- 
calling such passages as Deut. xvii. 7, xix. 19. 

GadAuooy S€ jpiv. Nothing is known of this custom of releas- 
ing a prisoner at the Passover apart from the Gospels. Pilate says 
“Ye have a custom” (Jn. xviii. 39), which is against the hypothesis 
that he originated it. The Herods may have done so in imitation 
of Roman customs. At the first recorded Zctisternium prisoners 
were released (Livy, v. 13. 7). 

BapaBBav. “Son of Abba” (father). Other instances of the 
name are given by Lightfoot: Samuel Bar-Abba, Nathan Bar- 
Abba (Hor. Heb. Mt. xxvii. 16). But evidence is wanting that 
Abba was a proper name. On the remarkable reading “Jesus 
Barabbas” Mt. xxvii. 16, 17 see WH. ii. App. 19. 

19. 81a ordow twa yevouerny. Of Barabbas they might with 
some truth have said votrov etpayey dtactpédovra 7d éOvos (ver. 2). 
Not that he had originated the ordovs, but that he had taken a 
conspicuous part in it. The ordots was probably no popular move- 
ment, but some plundering disturbance. Jn. calls him simply “a 
robber,” and he may have been connected with the other two 
robhers who were crucified with Jesus The rather awkward order 


526 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE | XXIII. 19-23. 


of the words in the verse is perhaps to intimate that while the 
atdous took place in the city the murder did not. 


On the rare form of periphrastic tense (j» with aor. part.), see Burton, 
§ 20. PdAnGels is the reading of BLT, for which 8A DXT etc. have the 
more usual BeBAnu(u)évos: and while SBLTX,fq have & ry gpvdaky, 
ADT Aetc. have the obvious correction els Thy puhaxiy. 

Excepting Mk. xv. 7 and Heb. ix. 8, erdovs in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. 
(ver. 25; Acts xv. 2, xix. 40, xxiii. 7, 10, xxiv. 5). In LXX it represents 
acet Hebrew words of different meaning. Syr-Sin. here has ‘‘ wicked 

eeds, 


20. That we should read 6¢é (S ABDT, Latt. Boh. Sah.) and not ody 
(XT AAetc.) after mdédw is certain. That adrois is to be added after rpoc- 
epovncev (NBLT, Latt. Boh. Sah. Syr-Cur. Aith.) is also certain. But 
Lk. uses the verb absolutely, xiii. 12; Acts xxi. 40. Contrast vii. 32; Acts 
XXlL. 2. 


érepdvouv. “Kept shouting at him”: clamabant (f), proclama- 
bant (a), succlamabant (Vulg.). In N.T. the verb is peculiar to 
Lk. (Acts xii. 22, xxl. 34, xxil. 24); but it is classical. According 
to all four Gospels the demand for crucifixion was not made until 
Pilate had proposed to release Jesus on account of the feast. Lk. 
and Jn. give the double cry, ‘‘ Crucify, crucify.” Mt. has oravpw- 
Oyrw, Mk. and Jn. cravpwoor, Lk. stavpov. 


We must read oravpov, 2 aor. imper. act., and not oravpod, mid. NB 
DF* have cravpov (d¢s), while ALPXT etc, have orabpwaoy (42s); but 
U 157, abefff,1 Arm. Aeth. omit the second ‘‘ Crucify.” 


22, Ti yap Kaxdv éwotycev; So in all three. The yap means 
“Impossible ; for what evil hath this man done?” This is well 
represented by the idiomatic “Why,” which we owe to the Vulg. 
Quid enim, through Rhem. Cov. has “ What evil ¢hez,” etc. The 
tptrov refers to vv. 4 and 14. 

obSév aitiov Oavdtov. The Oavarov is a qualification added after 
the failure of the mission to Herod (ver. 15). Previously it was 
ovdey aitiov without limitation (vv. 4, 14). In his weakness Pilate 
begins to admit, ‘‘ Well, perhaps He may be guilty of something: 
but He is not guilty of a capital offence.” He began by saying 
that Herod had not found Him worthy of death. Now he says 
the same himself. In each case the proposal is the same,—a- 
devoas aroAvow (vv. 16, 22). 

23. éméxewvto . p. aitodpevor. Comp. maddov éméxerto ddvav, 
HGAAov ééKewTo Bracpnpodvres (Jos. Ant. xviii. 6. 6, xx: Senay 
With puvats peydAaus comp. i. 42, iv. 33, Viil. 28, xvii. 15, etc. 

katioxuov. Comp. xxi. 36: “they prevailed, ” but not until 
Pilate had tried whether the zadevew would satisfy them (Jn. 
xix. 1). Mt. and Mk. connect the scourging with the cruci- 
fixion, because it usually preceded this punishment in Roman 


XXIIL 23-26.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 527 


law.! It is extremely unlikely that Pilate allowed the scourging 
to be repeated. He merely separated it from the crucifixion in 
the hope that the latter would not be required. Note the 
impressive repetition of wvai. 

24, énéxpwev. ‘He gave sentence”; 2 Mac. iv. 47; 3 Mac. 
iv. 2. Here only in N.T., but classical. For 16 airnua comp. 
Phil. iv. 6. 

25. dmé\ucev . . . wapédwxev, This tragic contrast is in all 
three ; and all four use zapédwxer of the final surrender. Comp. 
Acts iii. 14, and note the contrast between these aorists and the 
imperfect jrTodvro, “kept demanding.” Both the repetition of 
tov 81a otdow, x.7.A. and the addition of TG Oehjpat. atta are 
peculiar to Lk. The writer thus emphasizes the enormity of the 
transaction. In the Gosfe/ of Peter Herod is present at this point 
and gives the sentence. He does not wash his hands, and the 
blame is transferred to him and the Jews. So also in the Acta 
Pilati (B. x.) it is the Jews who hastily execute the sentence, as 
soon as Pilate has pronounced it. Comp. Justin (Z7y. cviii.) ov 
oTAUpwoavTwY HUdV. 

26-82. § The Road to Calvary, Simon the Cyrenian, and the 
Daughters of Jerusalem. With the exception of ver. 26, the whole 
of this is peculiar to Lk. In ver. 26 his wording is closer to Mk. 
xv. 21 than to Mt. xxvii. 32. 

26. Kupyvaiov. Josephus tells of the origin of the Jewish 
colony in Cyrene (AZvon. ii. 4), and quotes Strabo respecting it 
(Antz. xiv. 7. 2): this gives us important information respecting 
that branch of the Dispersion. Comp. Amz. xvi. 6. 1, 5; 1 Mac. 
xv. 23; 2 Mac. il. 23. That Cyrene was the chief city of the 
district, which is the modern Tripoli, is shown by the name 
Cyrenaica and by Acts ii. 10. For the literature of the subject 
see D.B.? i. p. 688. This Simon may have been a member of the 
Cyrenian synagogue at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 9). It has been pro- 
posed to identify him with “Symeon that was called Niger,” who 
is mentioned in company with “ Lucius of Cyrene” (Acts xiii. 1). 
But Simon or Symeon was one of the commonest of names; and 
Lk. would probably have given the same designation in both 
books, if he had meant the same person. If the Rufus of Rom. 
xvi. 13 is the Rufus of Mk. xv. 21, then the wife of Simon of 
Cyrene was well known to S. Paul. 

épxopevov dm dypod. Mk. has the same. He might be taking 
‘a sabbath day’s journey”; so that this is no proof as to the date. 
But he would not be likely to be coming in from the country on 
such a sabbatical day as Nisan 15. 


1 Jos. B. J. ii. 14. 9, v. 11. 15 Livy, xxii. 13. 6, xxxiii. 36. 3; Cic. Jn Verr 
vy. 62, 162, Capital punishment of any kind was generally, according to Roman 
custom, preceded by beating. 


528 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [| XXIII. 26-28. 


The gen. of TR. following APTA etc. (Ziuwvds rivos Rupaealenye is prob- 
ably a grammatical correction. 


eméOnxav ait tov otaupdv. His being a provincial may have 
made them more ready to make free with him. Perhaps it was 
only the cross-beam (fatibudum) which he carried; and if he 
carried both pieces, they would not be fastened together as finally 
erected. On the shape of the cross see Justin, Z7y. xci.; 1 AZo. 
lv.; Iren. ii, 24. 4; Tert. Adv. Jud. x.;. Ad. Wangan 
Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Cross”; Kraus, Real-Enc. d. Chr. Alt. ii. 
p. 225. At first Jesus carried it Himself (Jn. xix. 17), according 
to the usual custom, ékaotos tv Kaxovpywy expéper Tov EavToU 
oravpov (Plutarch, De Sera Num. Vind. ix. p. 554 B), as iridicated by 
the word furcifer: but He was physically unable to continue to do 
so. Indeed it has been inferred from ¢é¢povowy airév (Mk. xv. 22) 
that at length He was unable even to walk, and was therefore 
carried to Golgotha: but comp. Mk. i. 32, vii. 32, Vili. 22, ix. 19. 
On the other hand Lange interprets ¢épew dricfev as meaning 
that Simon carried the lower end, while the top was still carried 
by Jesus. But this is not in harmony with tva apy tov oravpov 
avrod (Mt. Mk.). Syr-Sin. here has, “that he might bear the 
cross and follow Jesus.” 


The Basilidian Gnostics taught that Simon was crucified in the place of 
Jesus, being transformed by Jesus to look like Him, while Jesus in the form of 
Simon stood by and laughed at His enemies: and it was for this reason that 
they disparaged martyrdom, as being an honour paid, not to Christ, but to 
Simon the Cyrenian. See Photius, 426/. cxiv. 292. Irenzeus (i, 24. 4) wrongly 
attributes this doctrine to Basilides himself, who was not docetic, but made 
the sufferings of Jesus an essential part of his system. Contrast Hippol. 
Refut. vii. 15. The Mahometans teach a similar doctrine; that God deceived 
the Jews and caused them to crucify a Spy, or an emissary of Judas, or Judas 
himself, in mistake for Jesus. See Sale’s Koran, pp. 38, 70, Chandos ed. 


27. yuvaixGy at éxérrovto, This incident is in place in the 
“Gospel of Womanhood” (i. 39-56, ii. 36-38, vii. 11-15, 37-50, 
viii. 1-3, x. 38-42, Xl. 27, xili. 11-16). These are probably not 
the women who had miniscered to Him previously (viii. 1-3), but 
sympathizers from the city. Comp. Zech. xii. 10-14. In the 
Gospels there is no instance of a woman being hostile to Christ. 
For éxémtovto comp. viii. 52 and Mt. xi. 17. 


The xal after ai—‘‘ which also bewailed” (AV.)—must be omitted upon 
decisive evidence: A BC* D LX, Boh. Sah. Vulg. ete. 


28. otpadets mpds attds. As they were following Him, this 
would hardly have been possible, if He was still carrying the cross: 
comp. Vii. 9, 44, 55, X. 23. For “daughter of” = “inhabitant of” 
comp. Is. xxxvii. 22; Zeph. iii. 14; Jer. xlvi. 19; Ezek. xvi. 46. 

ph kAalete én” éué- mAty ép Eautds Kdalete. Comp. Judg, 


XXIIL 28-31.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 529 


xi. 37, 38. Note the chiasmus, making the contrast between épé 
and éavrds very emphatic. His sufferings will be short, and are 
the road to glory: theirs will be prolonged, and will end in shame 
and destruction. Christ is not rebuking mere sentimentality or 
sympathetic emotion, as if the meaning were that they ought to 
lament their own sins rather than His sufferings. The form of 
command is similar to that in x. 20. They are not wrong in 
weeping for Him: nevertheless there is something else for which 
they may weep with far greater reason. That for which He wept 
(xix. 41-44) may rightly move them to tears,—the thought that a 
judgment which might have been averted must now take its 
course. For the legend of Veronica see D. of Chr. Biog. iv. 


p. 1107. 


Comp. an eloquent passage in a lecture on the relation of Art to Religion 
by Ruskin, in which he contrasts the barren emotion produced by realistic 
representations of the past agonies of Christ with sympathetic realization of the 
present miseries of mankind (Lectures on Art, Oxford, 1870, § 57, p. 54)» 


29. Epxovrat jpépar. “ Days are coming”: comp. Heb. viii. 8 ; 
Jer. vil. 32, ix. 25, xvi. 14, xix. 6, xxiii. 5, 7, etc. In all these cases 
idov precedes épxovrat. In Lk. the fut. is more common: v. 35, 
XVii. 22, xix. 43, xxl. 6. Here the nom. to épotcw is not 7a téxva 
tpov, but “ people, the world in general”: man wird sagen. 

Maxdptat at oretpar. As a rule childless women are com- 
miserated or despised (i. 25, 36), but in these dreadful times they 
will be congratulated. Comp. Eur. Androm. 395; Al. 882; Tac. 
Ann. ii. 75.1. See oni. 24. 

80. rote dpfovrat. The nom. is the same as to épotow,—the 
population generally, not the women only; and the rére means 
simply év éxeivats tais 7uépas. The wish is that the mountains 
may fall on them and &7// them, not hide and grosect them. Death 
is preferable to such terror and misery. So also in the original 
passage Hos. x. 8; comp. Rev. vi. 6, and contrast Is. ii. 19. 

81. St ei év 73 Gypd ~vAw. This is not a continuation of the 
cry of despair, but gives the reason for predicting such things. 
‘These horrors will certainly come, Jecause,” etc. In Syr-Sin. the 
6zt is omitted: “Who do these things in the moist tree, what shall 
they do in the dry?” Proverbs of similar import are found in 
various languages, and are capable of many applications: comp. 
Prov. xi. 31; 1 Pet. iv. 17, 18. This saying is an argument @ 
fortiori, and it may be easily applied in more than one sense here. 
(1) If the Romans treat Me, whom they admit to be innocent, in 
this manner, how will they treat those who are rebellious and 
guilty? (2) If the Jews deal thus with One who has come to save 
them, what treatment shall they receive themselves for destroying 
Him? (3) If they behave thus before ‘he’r cup of wickedness is 

34 


530 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X XIII. 31-33. 


full, what will they commit when it overflows? The use of vAov, 
lignum, for a tree as well as for timber is late Greek (Gen. i. 29, 
ii. 9, iil. 1; Is. xiv. 8; Ps. i. 3). In Ezek. xxi. 3 [xx. 47] we have 
Evdov xAwpdy and &tAov ~ypdv combined; but otherwise there 
is no parallel. 


For the delib. subjunct. yévyrat comp. Mt. xxvi. 54, and “Qua éyw, tl 
wddw; th yd wor wjiora yévnrar; (Hom. Od. v. 465). See Burton, § 169. 


82. étepo. kakoUpyot 840. This is the order of 8 B and Aegyptt., 
which has been corrected to érepor dv0 xaxotpyo., to avoid the 
implication that Jesus was a Kaxodpyos. With a similar object 
Syr-Sin. with Codd. Colb. and Palat. omits érepo., and perhaps 
the omission of xai before érepo. (Syr-Cur. b) is due to the same 
cause. Yet the implication is not necessary. We may retain the 
order of s B and translate, “‘ others, viz. two malefactors” ; or, “‘two 
very different malefactors.” In the latter case xaxotpyos is used of 
Jesus with irony against those who treated Him as such: é& rots 
avépmous eAoyioGy (Is. liii. 12). But it is perhaps best to regard it 
as what Field calls “a negligent construction” not likely to be 
misunderstood. In that case the AV. is courageously accurate 
with “two other malefactors”: for the comma after “other” is 
a later insertion of the printers ; it is not found in the edition of 
1611. These two xaxodpyou were bandits (Mt. xxvii. 38, 44; Mk. 
xv. 27). The hierarchy perhaps contrived that they should be 
crucified with Jesus in order to suggest similarity of crime. In 
the persecutions, Christians were sometimes treated in this way. 
Comp. moAAdxis dua Kaxovpyots éurouretoas TO oTadiw (Eus. Mart. 
Fal, vi. 3). 


Note the characteristic Jv, and for avatpeO7vat see on xxii. 2. 

The Latin Versions render xaxodpyo latrones (abefff,1), maligni (d), 
ret (c), neguam (Vulg.), to which are added the names of the robbers, /oathas 
et Maggatras (1). Similarly in Mk. xv. 27 we have names added, Zoathan et 
Chammatha (c), and in Mt. xxvii. 38, Zoathan et Camma. See on ver. 39. 


83-88. The Crucifixion. The narrative is substantially the 
same as Mt. xxvii. 33-44 and Mk. xv. 22-32; but it has inde- 
pendent features. 

33. témov. This word is used by all three. The precise place 
is still a matter of controversy, and must remain so until excava- 
tion has determined the position of the old walls, outside which it 
certainly was. See MacColl, Contemp. Rev., Feb. 1893, pp. 
167-188 ; D.B.? i. pp. 1205, 1652-1657. 

tov Kadovpevov Kpaviov. See on vi. 15. It was so called on 
account of its shape, not because skulls were lying there unburied, 
which would have outraged Jewish feeling. Lk. omits the Hebrew 
name Golgotha (Mt. xxvii. 33; Mk. xv. 22; Jn. xix. 17), which 
would have conveyed no meaning to Greek readers, as he has 


XXII. 33, 34a.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 531 


already omitted (without Greek equivalent) Gethsemane and 
Gabbatha. It is from the Latin (Jocum gui vocatur Calvariz) that 
the word “Calvary” has come into all English Versions prior to 
RV., which has, “the place which is called The Skull.” 


The ancient explanation that the place was thus called because of the skull 
of Adam, who was buried there by Noah after the Flood, is rejected by Jerome 
(on Mt. xxvii., Migne, xxvi. 209), as zzterpretatio mulcens aurem populi, nec 
tamen vera. But he wrongly adopts the view that it was a place in which 
truncantur capita damnata, a view which even Fritzsche (on Mt. xxvii. 33) has 
defended. No such place has ever existed in the East, least of all at Jerusalem: 
and such a place would be styled xpavlwv réros not xpavlov. A rocky protrusion, 
resembling a skull in form, is no doubt the meaning. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem 
speaks of it as ‘rising on high and showing itself to this day, and displaying 
even yet how because of Christ the rocks were then riven” (Catech. Lect. 
xiii. 39). : 

For the attractive Adam legend compare Ambrose, ad loc.: Congruebat 
guippe ut bi vite nostra primitia locarentur, ubi fuerant miortis exordia 
(Migne, xv. 1852). Chrys. and Euthym. do not go beyond ¢radition (¢act 
tes), which they do not expressly accept. See Tisch. aff. crit. ad Jn. xix. 17. 


éotatpwoay attov. It will always remain disputable whether 
our Lord’s feet were nailed as well as His hands. Jn. xx. 25-27 
proves that His hands were nailed: but it is not cer¢aim that Lk. 
xxiv. 39 has any reference to the nails. In the Gospel of Peter, 
before the burial, nails are taken from the hands only. Ewald 
refers to the Zectschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes, i. 20, for 
evidence that in Palestine the medizval tradition limited the 
nailing to the hands ; but this is less probable. 


év wey... 6v 6... For this late use of the relative comp. Mt. 
xxi. 35, xxii. 5, xxv. 15; 1 Cor. xi. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 20; Rom. ix. 21. 


34a. As in the cases of xxii. 19b, 20 and of 43, 44, we have to consider 
whether this passage is part of the original text. For the evidence see the 
additional note at the end of the chapter. ‘‘ Few verses of the Gospels bear in 
themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the 
Words from the Cross: but it need not therefore have belonged originally to 
the book in which it is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an 
extraneous source. Nevertheless, like xxii. 43f.; Mt. xvi. 2f., it has ex- 
ceptional claims to be permanently retained, with the necessary safeguards, in 
its accustomed place” (WH. ii. App. p. 68). 


6 8€ “Ingots edeyev. The d¢ and the imperf. refer back to 
éotavpwoav aitov: while they crucified Him, He in contrast to 
them was saying. 

&pes adtois. This cannot refer to the Roman soldiers, who 
were doing no more than thefr duty in executing a sentence which 
had been pronounced by competent authority. It was the Jews, 
and especially the Jewish hierarchy, who were responsible for 
what was being done: and but for the pressure which they had 
put upon him, even Pilate would have remained guiltless in this 
matter. What follows shows that the petition refers to the act of 


532 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X XIII. 34a, 35. 


crucifixion, not to their sins generally. In this way He “made 
intercession for the transgressors” (Is. liii. 12); where, however, 
LXX has 8a tas dvopias aitav wapedo0y. 

od yap oidac.v ti motodow. This was true even of the rulers 
(Acts iil. 17), still more of the people, and most of all of Pilate. 
Their ignorance of what they were doing in crucifying the Christ 
mitigates their guilt. Comp. xii. 48, and rovotow in ver. 31: also 
the use of the words attributed to James the Just at his martyrdom 
(Hegesip. af. Zus. H. £. ii. 23. 16). 

34b. Atapeprfsuevor . . . KAfjpov. The wording is very similar 
in all three, and is influenced by Ps. xxii. 19, which Jn. (xix. 24) 
quotes verbatim from LXX. Some texts wrongly insert the 
quotation Mt. xxvii. 35; but the Synoptists use the wording of 
the Psalm without directly quoting it. Jn. tells us that it was a 
quaternion of soldiers (comp. Acts xii. 4) who were carrying out 
the procurator’s sentence, and thus came to share the clothes as 
their perquisite. And Jn. distinguishes, as does the Heb. of Ps. 
xxli. 19, although LXX and the Synoptists do not, between the 
upper and under garments. This dividing of the clothes is one 
more detail in the treatment of Christ as a criminal, and a criminal 
whose career was closed. 

The sing. kAfjpov (8 BC DL, bed Aeth.) has been altered in some texts 


to KAypous (A X, aefff, Vulg. codd. plur. Syr-Sin.) to harmonize with usage, 
e.g. 1 Chron, xxv. 8, xxvi. 13, 143; Neh. x. 34, xi. I, etc. 


835. Oewpay. egepuxtypitov. Both words are from Ps. xxii. 8: 
mavtes ot Gewporvrées pe CLeuvxtynpicav pe. Mt. and Mk. use other 
words ; but they add, what Lk. omits, the fulfilment of éexivyoav 
kepoAynv. Lk. marks clearly four kinds of ill-treatment which 
Jesus received. The people iorjxes Oewpdv, the rulers é&euuk- 
typitov, the soldiers évéroufav, and the robber éBAacdype. They 
form a sort of climax. The @ewpdv implies vulgar curiosity, 
staring as at a spectacle (comp. ver. 48): for éxuuxrnpi~w comp. 
xvi. 14, where, as here, Cod. Bezae has subsannabant. For the 
form totyKe see ON Ver. 10. 

“A\Nous écwcev, This sarcasm is preserved in all three 
narratives, but Lk. alone gives the cone otros and 6 
éxAextos. Comp. ix. 35. Jesus was elected from all eternity to 
fulfil all these things. 

WH. and RV. put a comma after tod Oeob, which belongs to 6 Xpiorés, not 
to 6 éxexTés. TR., following A C°Q XT etc., places 6 before rod Geov, while 
C*, ff, have 6 é\ex7bs before rod Geos. Syr-Sin. supports this combination. 
D has ef ulds ef rod Oeod ef Xprords ef 6 éxAexrbs, sz filzus es ded st chrastus es 
electus ; and the insertion of uiés is found in other texts. 

The ovv avtrois after dpxovres (AT ATI, f Vulg. Syr-Sin.) is an insertion 
to harmonize with Mt. and Mk, 


86 87. This mockery by the soldiers is peculiar to Lk, 


XXIII. 35-38.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 533 


Apparently it was the hierarchy who took the initiative. They 
told the King of Israel to come down from the cross ; the soldiers 
told the King of the Jews to save Himself. Note the change of 
tense (eéepuxrypifov, évérargav), which implies that the soldiers 
were less persistent in their derision than the rulers. The reading 
évémailov (A C D Q etc.) has all the look of a correction. 

86. df05 mpoohéportes. Offering some of their sour wine or Zosca, 
which the Evangelists call dos, perhaps in connexion with érérurdv 
pe d&0s (Ps. Ixviii. 22). Probably they could not have reached 
His lips with a vessel held in the hand; otherwise the sponge 
would not have been placed on a stalk, however short (Jn. xix. 29): 
but there is no reason for supposing that Christ’s feet were on a 
level with the heads of the spectators, as pictures sometimes 
represent. 


Comp. the words which legend has put into the mouth of His Mother at 
the cross: KAivov oraupé, va mepikaBodca roy vidy pov Katagidjow Tov ends 
uléy (Acta Pilate, B. x.). 


838. jv Se Kat émypadh ém attG. For emvypady Mt. has 7. 
aitiav avrov, Mk. 7 érvypadpi) THs airias adrod, Jn. titrAov. Thus 
Mk. again has the whole expression of which Mt. and Lk. have 
each a part: comp. iv. 40, v. 13, xxii. 34. The name and crime 
of the person executed was sometimes hung round his neck as he 
went to the place of crucifixion and then fastened to the cross. 
The «ai suggests that this inscription was an additional mockery. 


The wording differs in all four Gospels, and perhaps it varied in the 
three languages. It was directed against the hierarchy rather than against 
Jesus. All four variations contain the offensive words ‘‘ The King of the 
Jews” (Jn. xix. 21). But Lk. regards it as an insult to Jesus. In the 
Gospel of Peter the wording is ‘‘ This is the King of /svae/,” just as at the 
mock homage the address is ‘‘ Judge righteously, O King of /srae/,” 

The words ypduuaciv ‘“EXAnvixots kal “Pwyarkots kal ‘EBpacxots are almost 
certainly a gloss from Jn. xix. They are omitted in § °4 BC* L, Syr-Cur. 
Syr-Sin. Boh. Sah., and by the best editors. The authorities which insert 
the words differ as to the order of the languages and as to the introductory 
words yeypapmérn or émvyeypamméevn, éw avr@ or én’ a’t@ yeypaupévn. The 
omission of the statement, if it were genuine, would be unintelligible. Comp. 
Jos. Ant. xiv. 10.2; B. J. vi. 2. 4, v. 5. 2. In the inscription itself the 
order of NBL, 6 Bac. ré&v I. obros, is to be preferred. D has the same, 
adding éorwy after obros, rex Judworum hic est. Contrast Eus. 4.2. vy. 1. 44. 


89-43. § The Two Robbers. Mt. (xxvii. 44) and Mk. (xv. 32) 
merely state that those who were crucified with Him reproached 
Him. 


Harmonists suggest that during the first hour both robbers reviled Jesus, 
and that one of them (who may have heard Jesus preach in Galilee) afterwards 
changed his attitude and rebuked his comrade. So Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, 
Theophylact, Euthymius, on Mt. xxvii. But Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and 
Augustine confine the reviling to one robber, who in Mt. and Mk. is spoken of 
in the plur. by syecdoche. See Maldonatus on Mt. xxvii. 44: with Suarez he 


$34 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII 80-42, 


adopts the latter view. Or they insist upon the difference between dveldifov, 
which Mt. and Mk. use of the two robbers, and éBAac@fuet, while Lk. uses of 
one of them. Both bandits reproached Jesus (perhaps for not having helped 
them in their revolt against existing conditions of society); but only one of 
them razled upon Him. It is much simpler to suppose that Mt. and Mk. 
regard the two Ayoral as a class, to which the conduct of either of them may be 
attributed. Christ’s conversation with the penitent robber would not be heard 
by many. The constant reviling (imperf.) of the other would be much more 
widely known. That éve.di{w may mean much the same as BAacgnuéw is seen 
from vi. 22; Rom. xv. 3; I Pet. iv. 14. The two verbs are combined 2 Kings 
xix. 22, and seem to be synonymous. Mt. and Mk. would hardly have omitted 
the incident of the penitent robber, if they had known it; but here Lk. once 
more has other sources of information. The incident would have special interest 
for him as illustrating the doctrine that salvation is open to all. 

In the Avabze Gospel of the Infancy (xxiii.) the names of the two robbers are 
given as Titus and Dumachus, Titus bribes Dumachus to release the Holy 
Family, whom they had captured. In the Greek form of the Gospel of 
Nicodemus (Acta Pzlatd x.) the penitent malefactor is Dysmas, and the other is 
nameless. In the Latin form (Gesta Pz/ati x.) the two are Dismas and Gestas, 
See small print note on ver. 32. 


39. Ets S€ tv kpewacOévrwy. When used of hanging on a cross 
or gibbet éi &i\ov is commonly added (Acts v. 30, x. 39; Gal. 
iil. 13; Gen. xl. 19, 22; Deut. xxi. 22, 23, etc.): but here the 
context is sufficient. 

Odxi od e?. This is the true reading (SBC*L and most 
Versions, including Syr-Sin.) rather than Ei od e& (AQ RX etc. 
cfq Vulg.). “Art thou not” is a more bitter taunt than “If thou 
art.” 

D de omit the utterance, and | substitutes ge destruebas templum et in 
tribus diebus rexdificabas illum, saluum te fac nunc et descende de cruce. 


40. O88€ poBA od tov Gedv. The ovdé cannot be taken with 
either ov (De W. Nosg.) or rév @cdv (Pesh.), but only with Pof7. 
“Dost thou not even fea7,” to say nothing of penitent submission 
(Schanz). ‘Dost not even thou fear” would be ovdé od Pofy; 
Vulg. Wegue tu times, Beza Ve tu quidem times, and Godet Zt tot non 
plus, tu ne crains donc point, are all inaccurate. The meaning is, 
“You and He will soon have to appear before God. Does not 
even fear restrain you from adding to your sins; whereas He has 
nothing to answer for.” 

41. oi8év dromov. A meiosis: “nothing unbecoming,” still 
less anything criminal ; Acts xxv. 5; Job xxvii. 6, xxxiv. 12, XXxV. 13; 
Prov. xxiv. 55; 2 Mac. xiv. 23. 

D has ovéév movnpdv érpaéev and then adds a characteristic amplification : 
kal orpagels mpds Tov Kvpiov elrev abt MvijoOnrl pov ev TH Huepa Tis éhevoews 
cov. dmoxpiOels 5é 6 Inoods elrev att TH emAnovvTt(?) Odpoe, oHpEepov 
uer’ éuod ton év TH Tapadelow. Respondens autem Jesus dixit gui objurgabat 
animeaquzor esto, hodie mecum erts in paradiso. See on ver. 53 and vi. 5. 


42. *Inood, prvjoOyti pov. “Jesus, remember me.” The 
insertion of xkipe (A RXTA etc. and most Versions) was made 


M 


XXII. 42, 48.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 535 


because “Ijood was mistaken for the dat. after Aeyev: dicebat ad 
Jesum, Domine, memento mei (Vulg.). So also Syr-Sin. Comp. 
GAAG pvyioOnri pov da ceavtod Grav ev aor yévyrat (Gen. xl. 14). 
The robber knew that he had only a few hours to live, and there- 
fore this prayer implies a belief in a future state in which Jesus is 
to receive him in His Kingdom. Possibly he believed that Christ 
would raise him from the dead. In any case his faith in one who 
is crucified with him is very remarkable. Some saw Jesus raise 
the dead, and did not believe. The robber sees Him being put to 
death, and yet believes. Contempserunt Judzt mortuos suscitan- 
tem: non coniempsit latro secum in cruce pendentem (Aug. Serm. 
xxiii. 3). D again amplifies with orpadets pos 7. Kiptov. 

év TH Baotdela cou. This is perhaps the best supported read- 
ing: comp. Mt. xvi. 28, xxv. 31. It means “when Thou comest 
in the glory and power of Thy Kingdom”: whereas eis riv 
Bactrciav cov (BL, Vulg., Hil. Ambr.) would mean “comest ixZo 
Thy Kingdom.” The former refers to Christ’s return in glory, the 
latter to His return to the Father through death. The alteration 
of & into «is as more appropriate to €A@ys seems more probable 
than the converse. That the robber had heard what is recorded 
Jn. xviii. 36, 37 is possible, but not probable. He believes that 
Jesus is the Messiah, and he knows that the Messiah is to have a 
kingdom. It is all but certain that the robber was a Jew. This 
is antecedently probable; and to a heathen the word “ paradise” 
would hardly have been intelligible. 


There is no reason for supposing that the robber felt the need of obtaining 
forgiveness from the Messiah. To the Jew death is an expiation for sin. 
In the ‘‘Confession on a Death Bed” in the Authorized Daily Prayer Book of 
the United Hebrew Congregations we have, ‘‘O may my death be an atonement 
for all my sins, iniquities, and transgressions, of which I have been guilty 
against Thee” (p. 317). 


43. “Auyy co héyw, As usual, this introduces something of 
special importance, or beyond expectation: iv. 24, xii 37, xviil. 17, 
29, xxi. 32. BC*L have this order; others the common "Api 
A€yw cor 

onpepov. To take this with Aéyw robs it of almost all its force. 
When taken with what follows it is full of meaning. Jesus knows 
that both He and the robber will die that day, and He grants him 
more than he had asked or expected. Uderior est gratia guam 
precatio. Ille enim rogabat ut memor esset sui Dominus cum venisset 
in regnum suum: Dominus autem ait illi: Amen, amen dico tibi 
Hodie mecum eris in paradiso. Ubi Christus, tbi vita, thi regnum 
(Ambr. ad /oc.). 

pet €u0d gon. Not merely in My company (ctv éyoi), but 
sharing with Me. The promise implies the continuance of con- 
sciousness after death. If the dead are unconscious, the assurance 


§36 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII. 43, 44. 


to the robber that he will be with Christ after death would be 
empty of consolation. 

€v 73 tapadetow. The word, said to be of Persian origin, is 
used in various senses in Scripture: 1. “a park or pleasure- 
ground” (Neh. ii. 8; Cant. iv. 13; Eccl. ii. 5); 2. “the garden of 
Eden” (Gen. ii. 8-10, 15, 16, iii. 1-3, 8-10, etc.); 3. “ Abraham’s 
Bosom,” 7z.e. the resting-place of the souls of the just until the 
resurrection (the meaning here) ; 4. ‘“‘a region in heaven,” perhaps 
identical with “the third heaven” (2 Cor. xii. 4). It is doubtful 
whether 6 zapddeuros Tod Meod (Rev. ii. 7) is the same as 3 or 4, 
or is yet a fifth use. By His use of the word, Jesus neither con- 
firms nor corrects Jewish beliefs on the subject. He assures the 
penitent that He will do far more than remember him at some 
unknown time in the future: this very day He will have him in 
His company in a place of security and bliss. See Wetst. 

Epiphanius (317, 347) states that Marcion omitted this promise of Christ 

to the robber. 


Origen sometimes adds rod Geo to wapadelow: elr add patrés. Syr-Cur. 
substitutes 27 horto Eden. 


44-49. The Death. In substance, and sometimes in wording, 
Lk. is the same as Mt. xxvii. 45-56 and Mk. xv. 33-41. But 
the words recorded in ver. 46 are peculiar to this Gospel, and 
once more (comp. vv. 27-32) are among the most precious details 
in the history of the Passion. 

44. 78 woel dpa extn. This is Lk.’s first note as to the time 
of day (xxii. 66), and he qualifies it with his favourite acet (i. 56, 
ill. 23, ix. 14, 28, xxii. 41, 59). In days in which there were no 
clocks, and on a day on which the darkness and the earthquake 
caused so much disturbance of the ordinary signs of the hour,. 
very large margin for inaccuracy may be covered by aoei. All 
three Synoptists give the sixth hour, ze. about noon, as the time 
when the darkness began; while Mk. (xv. 25) gives the third hour 
as the time of the Crucifixion. On the apparent discrepancy be- 
tween these statements and Jn. xix. 14 see Ramsay in the Lxfositor 
for March 1893 and June 1896. The 737 is in B C* L, Boh. 

ed dkny Thy yy. “Over the whole Zand” (Orig. Luth. Calv. 
Bez. Mald. Nosg. Schanz, Hahn, Tyn. Cov. Gen. RV.), rather than 
“over all the earth” (Euthym. Beng. De W. Mey. Godet, AV.). 
For “land” comp. iv. 25, xxi. 23: for “earth” xxi. 35; Acts i. 8. 
The Gospel of Peter has jv 8 peonp pia Kal oxoros Katéoxe Tacav 
tiv ‘Iovdaiav, where, as here, the time of day and the darkness are 
co-ordinate (xad, not 6re): Win. lili. 3, p. 543. 

These exceptional phenomena, as Godet points out, may be attributed either 
to a supernatural cause or to a providential coincidence. On ne peut mécon- 


naitre une relation profonde, dun coté, entre Phomme et la nature, de Pautie, 
entre Phumanité et Christ. The sympathy of nature with the sufferings of the 


XXIII. 44,45.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 537 


Son of God is what seems to be indicated in all three accounts, which are here 
almost verbally the same; and possibly the Evangelists believed the darkness 
to have enveloped the whole earth. 


45. tod HAlou éxdetmovtos. The reading is doubtful; but this 
is probably correct, although ékAirdvros may possibly be correct. 
“The sun failing,” or “the sun having failed,” is the meaning: 
and we must leave it doubtful whether Lk. supposes that there 
was an eclipse (which is impossible at full moon), or uses éxAecizrewv 
in its originally vague sense of “fail.” The latter is probable. 
Neither in LXX nor elsewhere in N.T. is éxAcizw used of the sun. 
The fact that it might mean an eclipse, and that an eclipse was 
known to be impossible, would tempt copyists to substitute a 
phrase that would be free from objection; whereas no one would 
want to change éoxorio67 6 jAwos. The Gospel of Peter states that 
““many went about with lamps, supposing it is night,” and that the 
darkness lasted until Jesus was taken from the cross, when the 
earthquake took place: “then the sun shone out, and it was 
found to be the ninth hour.” 


The evidence stands thus :— 

tov jAlov éxdelrovros (or éxduréytos SL al., Tisch.) 8 BC* (?) L codd. 
ap. Orig. Aegyptt. Orig. ‘‘Cels.” WH. RV. Weiss. kal éoxorla@n 6 Aros 
ACDQRXT etc., codd. af. Orig-lat. Latt. Syr. Marcion af. Epiph. 
Lach. Treg. D has éox. 6 The Latin renderings are zztenebricatus est sol 
(a), cenebrzcavit sol (c), obscuratus est sol (def Vulg.). See WH. ii. App. 
pp. 69-71 for a full discussion of the evidence. 

Julius Africanus (¢. A.D. 220) in his Chronica opposes the heathen 
historian Thallus for explaining this darkness as an eclipse, which at the 
Passover would be impossible (Routh, fe/. Sacr. ii. pp. 297, 476). In the 
Acta Pilati, A. xi. the Jews are represented as explaining away the darkness 
in a similar manner: éxAevus AAlov yéyovev kata 7d elwOés ! 

Origen (Con. Cels. ii. 33, 59 ; comp. 14) tells us that Phlegon (a freedman 
of Hadrian) recorded the earthquake and the darkness in his Chronicles. 
Eusebius in his Chronicle quotes the words of Phlegon, stating that in the 
202"4 Olympiad (4 year of the 203'4, Arm. Vers.) there was a very great 
eclipse ; also that there was a great earthquake in Bithynia, which destroyed 
a great part of Nicaea (Eus. Chron. p. 148, ed. Schcene). It is impossible to 
determine whether the events recorded by Phlegon have any connexion with 
the phenomena which accompanied the death of Christ. 


éoxtoOy S€ 73 Kataméracpa, Between the Holy Place and the 
Holy of Holies (Exod. xxvi. 31; Lev. xxi. 23, xxiv. 3; Heb. vi. 19; 
comp. Heb. x. 20) there was a curtain called 16 devrepov xatarée 
taopa (Heb. ix. 3), to distinguish it from the curtain which 
separated the outer court from the Holy Place. The latter was 
more accurately, but not invariably, called 76 KdAvupa (Ex. 
xxvii. 16; Num. iii. 25). But Jewish traditions state that there 
were /wo curtains, one cubit apart, between the Holy Place and 
the Holy of Holies, the space between them being called rtapaéis 
because of the perplexity which led to this arrangement (J. Light- 


538 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII. 45, 46, 


foot on Mt. xxvii. 51). It is not clear how many curtains are 
included in 74 xatawerdcwata in 1 Mac. iv. 51. It is futile to 
speculate ow the curtain was rent; but the fact would be well 
known to the priests, “‘a great company” of whom soon afterwards 
became “obedient to the faith” (Acts vi. 7). The pécov of Lk. is 
more classical than the eis dvo of Mt. Mk. and the Gospel of Peter 

46. dwvjcas pwvh peyddy. All three mention this loud voice, 
which seems to indicate that Jesus did not die of exhaustion, 
Comp. Stephen’s cry (Acts vil. 60). But here the fondness of Lk. 
for cognate words is conspicuous. While he has ¢wvycas duvy, 
Mt. has xpagas gory, and Mk. dgels dwvyv: comp. i. 42, ii. 3, 9, 
Vil. 29, Xl. 50, XVli. 24, xxii. 15: and see on xi. 46. The aorist 
does not prove that dwrv7jcas is not to be taken with efev, and we 
may suppose that what was uttered with a loud voice was the say- 
ing, ‘Father, into Thy hands,” etc. Comp. the freq. dzoxpuets 
eizev. But it is admissible to make the ¢wvyjcas refer to “It is 
finished,” or to some separate inarticulate cry. It is quite un- 
necessary to suppose that Lk. has here taken the words of Ps. 
xxxi. 6 and attributed them to Jesus, in order to express His sub- 
missive trust in God at the moment of death. Are we to suppose 
that Jesus did not know Ps. xxxi.? or that, if He did not, such a 
thought as this could not occur to Him? 

eis xetpds cou TapatiWenor tT. mv. p. The psalmist, thinking of 
a future death, has zapa6yocopua, which L and inferior MSS. read 
here. The voluntary character of Christ’s death is very clearly 
expressed in this last utterance, as in afjxey 76 mvetpa (tt.) and 
mapédwkey TO mvevua (Jn.). None of the four says daeGavev, or 
éxoiunOn, or éreAcdryoev. Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut 
Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? Quis tta vestem ponit quando 
voluerit, sicut se carne exuit quando voluit? Quis ita cum voluerit 
abit guomodo cum voluit obiit ? (Aug. Tr. in Joh, xix. 30). To urge 
that this utterance is not consistent with ver. 43 is futile, unless we 

1Jerome says, Jn evangelio autem quod Hebraicis litteris scripium est, 
legimus non velum templi scissum, sed superlimenare Templi mire magnt- 
tudinis coruisse (Ad Hedyb. viii.). Elsewhere he says, superlimenare templi 
infinite magnitudints fractum esse atque divisum legimus (Com. in Matt. 
xxvii. 51). See Nicholson, Gosfel acc. to the Hebrews, p. 62. 

In the Gemara it is stated that some forty years before the destruction of 
Jerusalem, the heavy gates of the temple, which could with difficulty be moved 
by many men, and which were locked at the time, flew open about midnight at 
the Passover. Josephus (2./. vi. 5. 3) reports an occurrence of this kind shortly 
before the capture of the city. As Neander remarks (Z. 7. C. § 293 n.), 
these accounts hint at some strange occurrence as being remembered in connexion 
with the time of the Crucifixion. 

The rending of the veil perhaps symbolized the end of the temple and its 
services. In Clem. Recogn. 1. 41 it is otherwise interpreted as a lamentation 
(comp. the rending of clothes) over the destruction which threatened the place. 
Better Theophylact : decxvivros rod Kuplov, 8re odk ér dBara tora Ta“ Ayia TOF 
dylwv, GAG Tots ‘Pwyalors tapadobévra, Baca kal BEBnAa yevyjoorTat. 


XXIII. 46-48.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 539 


believe that God is excluded from paradise (Ps. xvi. 10, cxxxix. 8 ; 
Acts ii. 27). 

Strauss, Renan, and others are unwilling to decide whether all the Seven 
Words from the Cross are to be rejected as unhistorical. Keim will commit 
himself to no more than ‘‘the two probable facts, that shortly before His 
death Jesus uttered a cry of lamentation, and when on the point of dying a 
death-cry ” (vi. p. 162). One asks once more, Who was capable of inventing 
such words ? Gonipare the inventions in the apocryphal gospels. 


47. 6 éxatovtdpyys. The one who was there to superintend 
the execution, supplicio prexpositus: all three speak of him as “ che 
centurion.” Legend has invested him with the name Longinus 
(Acta Pilati, B. xi.), which perhaps originally meant the soldier 
with the Adyxyn (Jn. xix. 34), and later writers make both him 
and the soldier with the spear die a martyr’s death. See D. of 
Chr. Ant. p. 1041. 

Td yevouevov. Not merely the manner of Christ’s death, but its 
extraordinary circumstances. Mt. has tov cevopov kai Ta yuvdmeva, 
Mk. Gre ovrws efervevoev. Mt. says that those with him joined in 
the exclamation, and that they “feared greatly.” 

eddfalev tov Oedv. He glorified God unconsciously by this 
public confession, by saying (A€ywv) that Jesus was no criminal, 
but had died in accordance with God’s will. The statement is the 
Evangelist’s appreciation of this heathen’s attitude towards the 
death of Christ. Some, however, suppose that the centurion was 
a proselyte, and that He first consciously praised God, and then 
added the remark which is recorded: comp. the use of the phrase 
il 205) Van 25, 20, Vil. 16, Xili. 13, Xvil. 15, xviii. 435 Acts iv, 21, 
xi, 18, xxi. 20. The good character of the centurions in N.T. 
confirms the statement of Polybius, that as a rule the best men in 
the army were promoted to this rank (vi. 24. 9). See small print 
on vii. 5. ACPQX etc. have edogace. 

"Ovtws . . . Sikatos Hy. Mt. and Mk. have ddyfads @cod vids 
jv. Harmonists suggest that the centurion said décaros before 
the earthquake, and @eod vids after it. More probably the two 
expressions represent one and the same thought: “He was a 
good man, and quite right in calling God His Father” (vv. 34, 46). 
The centurion would not mean much by vids @cod. See Aug. De 
Cons. Ev. iii. 20. 

48. cuvmapayevopevor . . . Oewpiav. Neither word occurs else- 
where in N.T. For Gewpia comp. Dan. v. 7; 2 Mac. v. 26, xv. 12 ; 
3 Mac. v. 24. Note the rdvres here and ver. 49. Neither Mt. 
nor Mk. has it: comp. xx. 18, 45, xxi. 29, xxiii. 1. The multitude 
would be very great, owing to the Passover, and thousands would 
see Jesus hanging dead upon the cross. They had looked on the 
whole tragedy as a sight, sfectaculum (ver. 35). 

tUmTovtes Ta 0TH9H. Many of them had had no share in clamour- 


540 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII 48-50. 


ing for Christ’s death; and those who had taken part had been 
hounded on by the priests, and now felt remorse for what they 
had caused. In the Gosfel of Peter they are made to say, “‘ Woe 
to our sins, for the judgment and the end of Jerusalem is at 
hand!” One Latin MS. (G) here adds dicentes ve nobis que facta 
sunt hodix propter peccata nostra, adpropinguavit enim desolatio 
hierusalem. In Syr-Sin, the verse runs, “And all those who sad 
ventured there and saw what happened, smote upon their breasts, 
saying, Woe to us, what hath befallen us! woe to us for our sins 1” 
Syt-Cur. is similar. D adds kai ra perma to orion. 

49. torjkeioav 8€ mdvtes of yvworot ata “ But (not “ And,” 
as AV. RV.), in contrast to the crowds who iréorpedov (Lk.’s 
favourite word), the faithful few remained.” Lk. alone mentions 
this fact: the Apostles perhaps are included. Comp. éudxpuvas 
Tovs yvworovs ov am’ éuod (Ps. Ixxxvil. 9); of Gyyrotd pov paxpolev 
éoryoay (xXxxvii. 12). 

For this use of yvworés comp. ii. 44. In the common signification of 
“known,” yrworss is freq. in Acts: elsewhere in N.T. rare. 

yuvatkes. Mt. and Mk. name Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of 
James and Joses, and Salome the mother of the sons of Zebedee. 

6pGcar taita. These do mot gaze as at a spectacle. The change of 
verb from Oewpycavtes (ver. 48) is ignored in Vulg. Tyn. Gen. Rhem. AV., 
while Cov. Cran. RV. distinguish. Although feminine, because of the nearest 
substantive, dpGca belongs to yv@oro as well as to yuvatkes. 


50-56. The Burial. Comp. Mt. xxvii. 57-61; Mk. xv. 42-47. 
In this section the whole of vv. 54-56 and portions of the rest are 
peculiar to Lk. Mk. tells us of Pilate’s surprise that Jesus was 
already dead, and of his sending for the centurion to be certified 
of the fact. Jn. xix. 38-42 is altogether independent. All four 
show how, even before the Resurrection, love and reverence for 
the Crucified was manifested. 

50. Note the characteristic kat (dod (i. 20, 31, 36), dvopaze 
(see on v. 27), idpxwy (see on vill. 3 and 41). 

Boudeurns. A member of the Sanhedrin is meant; and trdpyw 
is to be taken with BovAevrys. Another amphibolous expression : 


comp. vv. 35, 43. 


The Latin Versions render Bovdeurjs by decurzo, the technical word for a 
member of a municipal senate; but 6 has comszlzarzus. Cod. Colb. after 
Joseph continues de civitate arimathia cum esset decurio qué sperabat regnum 
dei et bonus homo non consentiens concilio et actui eorum hic accesset, etc.— 
a free transposition. 


dyads kal Sikatos. Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. transpose the epithets, 
which refer to his life as a whole, and not merely to his conduct at 
this time (i. 6, ii. 25). Mt. says that Joseph was zAovovos, Mk. 
that he was cicyyjpwv, Jn. that he was payrys tov “Iycod Kexpoy: 
pevos d& dia Tov PoBov Tay Tovdatwr. 


XXIII, 51-53. | THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 541 


Bl. ovK Hv cuvkatatePerpévos. We do not know whether he had 
absented himself, or abstained from voting, or voted in opposition 
to the sentence: the verb occurs Exod. xxiii. 32. Apparently he 
was not present when the sentence recorded Mk. xiv. 64 was 
pronounced, for that was unanimous. 

TH Bouhkf. Excepting 1 Cor. iv. 5; Eph. i. 11; Heb. vi. 17, 
BovaAy is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. See on vii. 30. In LXX it is 
very common. 

1H mpage. When the word is used in a bad sense, the plur. is 
more common (Acts xix. 18; Rom. viii. 13; Col. iii. 9), as in our 
“practices”: but Polybius uses the sing. in this sense. Here the 
method by which they compassed the death of Jesus is specially 
meant. 


avrav. Who these are is suggested rather than stated by the preceding 
BovAeuris : atray means “‘ of the Sanhedrin.” Win. xxii. 3 (2), p. 182. 


dd “Apipabatas modews t. 1. The dad probably means birth- 
place or former residence (Mt. xxi. 11): his having a burial-place 
at Jerusalem shows that he had settled there ; and his being one of 
the Sanhedrin confirms this. Arimathzea is commonly identified 
with Ramah, the birthplace and home of Samuel. Its full name 
was Ramathaim-zophim = “ Double Height of the Watchers.” In 
LXX it is called "Appafain (1 Sam. i. 19), and the identification of 
its site ‘is, without exception, the most complicated and disputed 
problem of sacred topography” (Stanley, Sz. & Pad. p. 224). 
The addition of toAcews twv ‘Iovdaiwy points to Gentile readers. 

mpooédexeTo T. Bacthelay 7. Oeod. “He was waiting for the 
Messianic Kingdom”: that he recognized Jesus as the Messiah is 
not implied. Comp. ii. 25, 38; Acts xxiii. 21, xxiv. 15. The 
verb is not found in Mt. or Jn., and only once in Mk., but occurs 
seven times in Lk. and Acts. 

52. The wording of all three is very similar, and also of the 
Gospel of Peter, which represents Joseph as coming defore Jesus 
was dead, and Pilate as sending to ask Herod for the body, who 
replies, “ Brother Pilate, even if some one had not asked for Him, 
we were intending to bury Him .. . before the first day of the 
unleavened bread.” Comp. the addition made in Cod. Colb. 

53. éverudugev atts owddv.. The verb occurs only here, Mt. 
XXvii. 59, and Jn. xx. 7. All three mention the ovvdév, which was 
cut into strips (6060 or xerpior) for the burial. Mk. (xv. 46) tells 
us that it had been bought by Joseph for the purpose, and there- 
fore on that day; which is another sign that the feast had not 
begun the previous evening. The Gosfel of Peter says that Joseph 
wa hed the body before wrapping it in linen. 


év pvjpatt Aafeuro. For pvypa see on xxiv. 1: the adjective is not 
classical; once in LXX (Deut. iv. 49) and four times in Aquila (Num. 


542 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIIL.653, 64 


xxi. 20, xxiii. 14; Deut. xxxiv. 13 Josh. xiii. 20). Comp. Aagedw (Exod. 
xxxiv. I, 4; Num, xxi. 19, xxiii. 14; Deut. iii, 27, x. 1, 3, etc.). Verband 
adjective seem to belong to the important class of words which became current 
through having been needed to express Jewish ideas and customs. Kennedy, 
Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 116. 

ovk Av ovdels ovrw. Accumulation of negatives: comp. Heb. xiii. 5, 
and see Win. lv. 9. b, p. 626; Burton, § 489. Mk. has kay. The fact is 
mentioned as a mark of special honour in contrast to the shameful death: 
comp. Xix. 30. 

Cod. Bezae has here one ofits characteristic interpolations. After celwevos 
it adds cal 6évtos atbrod éréOnke TS pynuelw AelBov dv pbyis elkoor exUAtov : ef 
postto e0 imposutt in monumento lapidem quem vix viginte movebant. 
Scrivener (Cod. Bezae, p. lii) remarks that this ‘‘strange addition” is ‘‘ con- 
ceived somewhat in the Homeric spirit.” Comp. Od. ix. 241. Prof. Rendel 
Harris (Cod. Bezae, ch. vii.) finds a hexameter in the Latin: zmzposuzt... 
lapidem quem vix vigintt movebant. But against this (as an acute critic in 
the Guardian of May 25, 1892, p. 787, points out) are to be urged (1) the 
intrusive 2% monumento, (2) the shortening of the final syllable in wzgzntz, 
which is improbable so early as the second century, (3) the fact that the same 
gloss, rather differently worded, is found not only in Cod. Colb., but in the 
Sahidic Version. Thus in one we have, fosuerunt lapidem quem wix vigintt 
volvebant (c); in the other, posuzt lapzdem in porta sepulcré quem viginti 
homenes volvere possent. To assume a Greek gloss, which was differently 
translated in two Latin and one Egyptian text, is a simpler hypothesis than a 
Latin gloss translated into Greek and Egyptian, and then from the Greek 
into a different Latin. Moreover, the fact that the tone of the gloss is 
Homeric rather than Virgilian points to a Greek origin. That there were 
Homerizers and Virgilianizers at this early date may be inferred from Tertull. 
De Prexscr. Her. xxxix. 


54, mapackeujjs. The word may mean either the eve of the 
sabbath or the eve of the Passover: and on this occasion the 
sabbath probably coincided with Nisan 15, the first day of the 
Passover. ‘This first day ranked as a sabbath (Exod. xii. 16; Lev. 
xxiii. 7), and therefore was doubly holy when it coincided with an 
ordinary sabbath. If the Passover had begun the previous even- 
ing, would Lk. and Mk. (xv. 42) speak of its first day as the eve of 
an ordinary sabbath? Just as we should hardly speak of “the first 
Sunday in April,” if that Sunday was Easter Day. But, although 
the day was a tupacxevy to both sabbath and Passover, it is the 
former that is probably meant. Comp. Mk. xv. 42. Caspari 
(§ 157) would take it the other way. 


For tapackevgs (NBC*L 13 346, cenw pure abcl parasceues Vulg.) 
AC*PXetc., fff, have rapackevyj, Syr-Cur. ferza sexta. For the whole verse 
D substitutes jv 6¢ 7 quépa mpocaBBdrou, erat autem dies antesabbatum. 


oéBBatov éwépwoxev. An inaccurate expression, because the 
sabbath began, not at dawn, but at sunset. But “it was dawning” 
easily comes to mean “it was beginning,” and is transferred to 
things which cannot “dawn.” In the Gosfe/ of Peter, when Pilate 
before the Crucifixion asks Herod for the body of Jesus, Herod 


XXIII. 54-56.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 543 


replies that in any case the body would have been buried that day, 
eel kal caBBatov éeripdoKe, yéypamtar yap €v TO vouw, HALov py 
ddvar ext rehovevevw. The verb has nothing to do with lighting 
/amps at the beginning of the sabbath (J. Lightfoot, Wetst.), nor is 
the rising of the s¢ars or the g/ow of sunset meant (Hahn). 

55. Kataxodov@ycacat. In N.T. here and Acts xvi. 17 only: 
in LXX Jer. xvii. 16; 1 Es. vii. 1; Judg. xi. 6; Dan.ix. 10; 1 Mac. 
vi. 23. Their following from the Crucifixion (ver. 49) to Joseph’s 
garden is meant, and the xara- does not mean “dowz into the 
grave,” but “after Joseph and his assistants.” Syr-Sin. and Syr- 
Cur. have “ And ¢ke women, who came with Him from Galilee, 
went to the sepulchre zz ‘heir footsteps, and saw the body when 
they [had] brought it in there.” The fact of the women beholding 
the tomb in which the body was laid is in all three Synoptic 
Gospels. It is part of the evidence for the Resurrection. 


For al yuvaixes (B LP X, Boh. Sah.) D 29, abeff,qr have vo yuvaixes, 
while TR. follows-certain cursives in reading kal yuvatkes. N ACT etc. have 
"yuvaixes without al or dvo or kal, and this Tisch. adopts. 

@s éré0n. We might have expected rs: comp. vi. 4, viii. 47, xxiv. 35 


56. dpdpata, In N.T. only of these spices; freq. in LXX. 
For pvpa comp. vil. 37. Mk. says that when the sabbath was 
over, z.e. on Saturday evening, the women bought dpwyara that 
they might azoim¢ Him, which shows that dpwmara are not to be 
confined to “sweet-smelling herbs” or to “dry” spices. The 
chapter ought to end at pvpa, for 76 wév caBBarov plainly balances 
7m S€ pia Tdv caBBarwr, and no more than a comma is needed 
after €vroAnv. D omits xara tiv évroAny. 

jjotxacav, The notice of this resting on the sabbath would be 
strange if they had been working on so sabbatical a day as 
Nisan 15 ; for it could not be urged that the preparation of spices 
and ointments was in any sense zecessary. When a sabbath imme- 
diately preceded Nisan 15, it was lawful to work on the sabbath a 
preparations for the feast. But can we suppose that, if in this year 
Nisan 15 immediately preceded the sabbath, pious women would 
have worked merely to gratify affectionate feeling? Or, having 
thought themselves justified in working for this purpose 02 
Nisan 15, that they would scrupulously have avoided continuing 
such work on the sabbath? If Nisan 15 coincided with the 
sabbath, all is explained: up to sunset on Friday it was lawful to 
work, and after sunset on Saturday it was lawful to work again. Of 
the interval Godet remarks, On peut dire que ce sabbat était le 
dernier de Pancienne alliance gui prenait fin avec la mort du Christ. 
Il fut scrupuleusement respeclé par tous ceux gui, sans le savoir 
allaient inaugurer la nouvelle. 


544 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIIL 


ADDITIONAL NOTE ON READINGS IN CHAPTERS XXIi, AND XXIII. 


(1) xxii. 43, 44. “O60n 62... éml Thy viv. 

Evidence for the passage :— 

N*°eDFGHKLMQUXA etc. and nearly all cursives. A has 
the Ammonian section of the passage marked in the margin, although it 
omits the passage in the text. 

All MSS. of Lat. Vet. excepting f Vulg. some MSS. of Boh. of Sah. 
and of Arm. Syr-Cur. (omitting da’ otpavod) Syr-Pesh. Syr-Hier. 

‘Just-M. Iren. Hippol. Dion-Alex. Eus. Greg-Naz. Epiph, Hil. 
Hieron. Aug. 

Evidence against the passage :— 

xn®ABRT 124: 13 has @0n 5€ prima manu, the rest secunda 
manu. C°69 and all known Evangelistaria have the passage inserted 
after Mt. xxvi. 39. ES VIATI and others, including nine cursives, 
have the passage marked with asterisks or obeli. Z¢ zz Grecés et in 
Latinis codd. complur. known to Hilary it was wanting, and it was found 
only 72 guibusdam exemplaribus tam Grecis guam Latinis known to 

erome. 
J f, most MSS. of Boh. including the best, some MSS. of Sah. and of 
Arm. (see Sanday, 4Z/. ad N.7. pp. 188, 191), Syr-Sin., Syr-Harcl. 
marg. 

Cyr-Alex. omits in his Homilies on Lk. Ambr. likewise. The silence 
of Clem-Alex. Orig. Cyr-Hier. Ath, and Greg-Nys. can hardly be accidental in 
all cases, or even in most. 

Excision for doctrinal reasons will not explain the omission. ‘There is no 
tangible evidence for the excision of a substantial portion of narrative for 
doctrinal reasons at any period of textual history” (WH. ii. App. p. 66). 

Nor does ‘‘ Lectionary practice” seem to be an adequate cause for such 
widespread omission. It is suggested that, because the passage was read after 
Mt. xxvi. 39 in the Lection for Holy Thursday, and omitted after Lk. xxii. 42 
in the Lection for Tuesday after Sexagesima, therefore some MSS. came to 
omit in Lk. or both Gospels. 

It will be observed that the early non-patristic evidence in favour of the 
words is &* D, Latt. Syrr. “‘a frequent Western combination.” 

But, if we regard the passage as probably a Western insertion in the text of 
Lk., we need have no hesitation whatever in retaining it as a genuine portion of 
historical tradition. It is true, whoever wrote it. 


(2) xxii. 68. After ob wh droxp.Ojre the words po } dwodtoyre. 
Evidence for the words :— 
ADXTAATetc., Latt. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin, 
Evidence against the words :— 
N BLT, Boh. one MS. of Vulg. (J), Cyr-Alex. Ambr, 
A few authorities have not without 4 arodvonre. 
With Tisch. WH. RV. we may safely omit. Treg. brackets, Alf, the same, 
suggesting homeeoteleuton as the cause of omission. : 


(3) xxiii. 34a, 6 58 ’Inoods . . » Todo. 
Evidence for the passage :— 
N*CACD?*LQXTAATI ete. 


cefff,lr Vulg. most MSS. of Boh. Syrr. (Cur. Pesh. Harcl. Hier.) 
Aeth. Arm. 


Iren-lat. Orig-lat. Hippol. Clem-Hom. Eus, Ath. Greg-Nys. Bas. 
Gest-Pilat. Chrys. Hil. Ambr, Hieron. Aug. 


XXL] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 545 


Evidence against the passage :— 
N® B D* 38 43 435. E has it marked with an asterisk, 
abd two best MSS. of Boh. Sah. Syr-Sin. , 
Cyr-Alex. is said by Arethas to have regarded it as spurious ; and 
this is confirmed by the text prefixed to the Syriac Homily on Lk. 
xxiii. 32-43 (p. 718, ed. Payne Smith). This, however, exists in only 
one MS., which ends before ver. 34 is properly reached. 
The omission in such witnesses would be very difficult to explain, if the 
e had been part of the original text of Lk. But, even more strongly than 
in the case xxii. 43, 44, internal evidence warrants us in retaining the passage 
in its traditional place as a genuine portion of the evangelic narrative. That 
point being quite certain, it matters comparatively little whether we owe this 
precious fragment to Lk, or not. 


ADDITIONAL NOTE ON XXIII. 45. 


Dr. E. A. Abbott conjectures that both here and xxii. §1 we have instances 
of substitution through misunderstanding. In the Classical Review of Dec. 
1893, p. 443, he writes: ‘‘ Though these words (rod 7Alov éxXelrovros) might 
mean ‘the sun failing (to give its light),’ yet the natural meaning is ‘ the sun 
being eclipsed.’ Now every one knew that an eclipse could not happen except 
at new moon, and every Jew knew that Passover was at full moon.” Why, 
then, he goes on to ask, does Lk. give an explanation of the darkness, which 
neither Mt. nor Mk. give, and which involves a portentous miracle? To the 
imaginary reply, ‘‘ Because Lk. wished to make it clear that it was a miracle 
and not a natural obscuration of the sun ; for he is not afraid of being the only 
Evangelist to insert a miracle, as is shown by his account of the healing ot 
Malchus’ ear,” Dr. Abbott rejoins that ‘‘ the latter miracle is sudstztuted rather 
than zuserted. It is substituted for a rebuke to Peter, ‘restore thy sword to its 
place.? Comp. Mt. xxvi. 52; Jn. xviii. 11, with droxarac7d@yre in Jer. xxix. 
(Heb. xlvii.) 6, and it will appear that the miraculous narrative probably arose 
from a misunderstanding of some ambiguous word, such as dmoxatacrdOyre 
(‘be thou restored’), or dmroxatacrabyjrw (‘let it be restored’), in the original 
tradition. ‘It’ (or ‘thou’) was interpreted by Mt. and Jn. (rightly) to be the 
‘sword,’ and by Lk. (wrongly) to be ‘the ear’; and the verb was interpreted 
by Mt. and Jn. (rightly) to mean ‘restored 70 zts place,’ but by Lk. (wrongly, 
though more in conformity with the Synoptic vocabulary, Mt. xii. 13; Mk. 
iii. 5, viii. 25; Lk. vi. 10, where it is used of a withered hand, or of a blind 
man) to mean ‘restored #0 z¢s original condition.’” 

Is it possible that the present, also, may be a case of substitution through 
misunderstanding? Let us turn to the parallel passage in Mt. (xxvii. 46-49) 
and Mk. (xv. 34-36). Here we find no mention of an eclipse, but of a saying 
of Jesus which was interpreted by the bystanders to mean that ‘‘ Z/as” had 
“* abandoned” (éyxatanelrew) Jesus. This Lk. omits altogether. But the 
genitive case of ‘‘ Elias” is the same as that of the ‘‘sun,” viz. #Aelov, or in 
MSS. #Afou: and éxAelzew, although not often used of Zersons failing others in 
an emergency, zs so used occasionally. Thus 7Alov éxAelrovros might mean 
either ‘‘ the sz being eclipsed,” or ‘* Elzas fatling, or forsaking.” 

But how could éyxataXelaovros be changed into éxXelyovros? Curtailments 
of long compounds are not infrequent in MSS. of the N.T., and specially with 
xatd: comp. Mk. xiv. 40; Lk. vi. 36; Mt. xiii. 40; Jas. ii. 13, lil. 14... . 
If Lk., or others before him, concluded that 7\fov must mean the sun, they 
would naturally infer that éyxaradelsovros must be an error for éxAelrovros. 

. . . It seems probable that Lk., finding obscure and divergent traditions 
about some utterance of Jesus, . . . considered that he was restoring the 
original meaning, and a meaning worthy of the subject, in retaining two or 
three words of the current tradition, but placing them in such a context as to 
show that it was the sz, and not Z/zas, that ‘‘ failed.” 


35 


546 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 


XXIV. The Resurrection and the Ascension. 


It is well known that the difficulty of harmonizing the different accounts of 
the Resurrection given by the Evangelists and by S. Paul is great; and this 
difficulty is perhaps at a maximum when the narrative of Lk. is compared with 
the others. Here, as so often in the Gospels, we have not sufficient knowledge 
to piece together the different fragments which have come down to us, and con- 
sequently the evidence for important facts is not what we might antecedently 
have expected or desired. But our expectations and wishes are not adequate 
criteria, and it is no paradox to say that the difficulty of harmonizing the various 
narratives is in itself a security for their general truthfulness. Dishonest wit- 
nesses would have made the evidence more harmonious. As it is, each witness 
fearlessly tells his own story according to the knowledge which he possesses, 
and is not careful as to whether it agrees with what may have been told else- 
where. Nevertheless there is agreement in the following important particulars :— 

1. The Resurrection itself is not described. Like all beginnings, whether 
in nature or in history, it is hidden from view. (Contrast the attempt at 
description in the Gospel of Feter.) 

2. The manifestations, while confined to disciples, were made to disciples 
who were wholly unexpectant of a Resurrection. The theory that they were 
visions or illusions, arising from intense and unreasoning expectation, is contrary 
to all the evidence that has come down to us. On the contrary, 

3. They were received with doubt and hesitation at first, and mere reports 
on the subject were rejected. 

4. The evidence begins with the visit of women to the tomb very early on 
the first day of the week, and the first sign was the removal of. the stone from 
the door of the tomb. 

5. Angels were seen before the Lord was seen. 

6. He was seen on various occasions by various kinds of witnesses, both 
male and female, both individuals and companies, both sceptical and trusting. 

7. The result was a conviction, which nothing ever shook, that *‘ the Lord 
had risen indeed” and been present with them (see Wsctt. on Jn. xx. I: he 
gives a tentative arrangement of the events of the first Easter Day, which at 
least shows that there is no serious discrepancy between the four narratives). 

Sadler asserts, and Godet endeavours to show, that each narrative is deter- 
mined by the purpose which each Evangelist had in view in writing ; but in 
most cases the distinctions are not very convincing. Nearly the whole of Lk.’s 
narrative is peculiar to him, the partial exceptions being vv. 1-6 and 9, 10. 
The nucleus of the whole is the account of the walk to Emmaus (vv. 13-43) ; 
and the first part of the chapter is an introduction to this graphic account, with 
special reference to vv. 22, 23. 

Ao excellent opportunity of comparing six forms of the Old Latin (abcdef) 
with one another and with the Vulgate is given in Scrivener’s edition of Codex 
Bezae in connexion with a large portion of this chapter. He prints the first 
twenty-four verses of this chapter as given in these authorities in seven parallel 
columns (pp. xxxvi, xxxvii). This passage is ‘‘rich in peculiar and idiomatic 
expressions, and little liable to be corrupted from the Synoptic Gospels.” The 
result, he thinks, is to show that the Latin of Codex Bezae was made ‘‘immedi- ~ 
ately from its Greek text,” which it generally servilely follows; but that 
occasionally the translator was led away by his recollection of the Old Latin, 
“sometimes for whole verses together,” even when the Old Latin differed from 
the Greek. text which he was translating. Adhuc sub judice lis est. 


1-11. The Visit of the Women to the Tomb and the Vision of 
Angels. Comp. Mt. xxviii. 1-10; Mk. xvi. 1-8; Jn. xx. I-10. 
Lk. and Jn. mention two Angels; Mt. and Mk. mention only one: 


XXIV. 1-4.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 547 


but we know too little about the manner of Angel appearances to 
be sure that Lk. and Jn. mention the same two Angels, or that Mt. 
and Mk. mention the same one. In the other two cases of similar 
difference (the Gerasene demoniacs and the blind men at Jericho) 
it is Mt. who mentions two, while Lk. gives only one. In all 
three cases Mk. mentions only one. Where, out of two or more, 
only one is spokesman, he is necessarily remembered. The other 
or others may easily be ignored or forgotten. It is an exaggeration 
to call such differences absolute discrepancies. Lk. records only 
those appearances of the risen Lord which took place in Judza. 


1. 7H 8 pig tev caBBdatwy. ‘‘ But on the first day of the week.” The 
dé corresponds to the previous yév: they rested on the sabbath, but the next 
day they did not. Jn. has the same expression (xx. 1), which literally means 
** but on day one of the week,” una autem sabbati (Vulg.): Cov. here translates 
*‘upon one of the Sabbathes,” and in Jn. “‘ upon one daye of the Sabbath.” 
ian here with Cran. he rightly has ‘‘ But” (RV.) and not *f And” (Rhem.) 

“Now” (AV.). 

Pessin. Acts xx. 7; Mt. xxviii. 1; Mk. xvi. 2; Jn. xx. 19; Rev. ix. 12. 
This use of the cardinal for the ordinal is Hebraistic: Gen. i. 5; Esr. ii. 6; 
Ps. xxiii. #7#. In class. Grk. it occurs only in combination with an ordinal: 
T@ évl kal rpinxoor@ (Hadt. v. 89. 2). 

dpOpov Babdws. It is doubtful whether BaGéws is the Attic form of the 
gen. of Ba@is (De W. Nosg. Alf.) or an adv. (Mey. Weiss). The former is 
probable ; for 5pApos Bafvs occurs (Aristoph. Vesp. 216; Plat. Crit. 43 A; 
see esp. Prot. 310 A; Philo, De Vita Mosis, i. 32), and 2 Cor. xi. 23 does 
not favour the latter. For Sp8pov comp. [Jn.] viii. 2; Jer. xxv. 4, xxvi. 5. 


76 pvipa. With the exception of Mk. v. 3, v. 5; Rev. xi. 9, 
‘he word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (viii. 27; xxlil. 53 ; Acts ii. 29, 


vii. 16). The common word is prypetov (xi. 44, 47, Xxili. 55, 
xxiv. 2, 9, 12, 22, 24, etc.); but Mt. sometimes has rados (xxiii 
27, 29, Xxvil. 61, 64, 66, xxviii. 1; comp. Rom. it: 13). RV. has 


“tomb” for pvqjpa and prynwetov, and “sepulchre” for rados. 
AC*DXT etc. dfq Syrr. (Cur. Sin. Pesh. Harcl. Hier.) Sah. Arm. 
a (most MSS.) add xaf wes odv atrais, and Ded Sah. add from Mk. 
Xvi. 3 Aoylfovro 6é év éaurais, tis Epa awoxuNice Tov AiPov ; N B C* L 33 124 
abce fil Vulg. Boh. Aeth. (some MSS.) omit. The insertion is a gloss 
from ver. 10 and Mk. xvi. I, 3. 


2. eipov Sé€ tov AiBov. Lk. has not yet mentioned it, but he 
speaks of it as well known or as usual. All three use dzoxvAiw of 
the stone, while Jn. has jppévov é«: the verb occurs nowhere else 
in N.T. Comp. Gen. xxix. 3, 8, 10; Judith xiii. 9. 


3. tot kuptov *Ingot. The combination occurs nowhere else in the 
Gospels, although possibly right [Mk.] xvi. 19; but it is frequent in Acts 


(i. 21, iv. 33, vili, 16, etc.) and Epistles. Here the words are ibly a 
very early insertion. "See note on Western Noninterpolations at end of 
this chapter. 


4 xal éyévero 1G dmopetcbar aitas mepi tovrTou, kai i8 u. Note 


548 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 4-6. 


the strongly Hebraistic construction, so common in Lk., and see 
additional note, p. 45. 


The Latin Versions differ greatly: dum aporiarentur (d), hesttarent (f), 
stuperent (ac), mente contristarentur (ff,), mente consternatz essent (Vulg.). 
The last is wrong both in verb and tense. Aforéaré occurs in Vulg. 2 Cor. 
iv. 8; Is. lix. 16; Ecclus. xviii. 6, and in Irenzus, ay es 


GvSpes U0. The plur. agrees with dyyéAwv in-ver. 23. For 
déymp of an Angel in human form comp. Acts i. 10, x. 30; for 
éeméotyoay see on ii. 9; and for éo@js see on xxiii. 11. Only here 
and xvii. 24 in N.T. does déotpdémtw occur. 


Instead of éc67jrt dorparrovcy (SBD, Latt. Orig. Eus.) TR. has écOjoe- 
ow dotparrovcas with AC DIA etc., Sah. Boh. Arm. L has écOjocow 


Aevkats, Syr-Sin. *‘ their garments were dazzling.” &@ ots does not occur in 
N.T. 


The contrast between the Gospel of Peter and the Canonical 
Gospels is still more marked in the account of the Resurrection 
than in that of the Passion. There the watchers see dvo avdpas 
come down from heaven ; and ayddrepor of veavioxor enter the tomb. 
But the watchers see zpets avdpas come out of the tomb. Then 
av@pwrés tus comes down from heaven and enters the tomb; and 
the women find twa veavicxor sitting in the tomb, and he addresses 
them. 

5. éuddBwv S€ yevopevwv. In N.T. the use of éugofos (always 
with yiverar) is almost confined to Lk. (ver. 37; Acts x. 4, 
xxii. 9, xxiv. 25; Rev. xi. 13): in LXX (without yiveo@ar) Ecclus. 
xix. 24; 1 Mac. xii. 2. The detail k\woucdy Ta mpdcwra mpos T. yh 
is peculiar to Lk. Note zpos airdés: Mt. and Mk. have the dat. 

Ti {ntetre tov Lavra peta Tay vekpOv; A rebuke: comp. ii. 49. 
There is possibly a reference to Is. viil. 19, t¢ éxnrotow wept Tov 
févrwv tos vexpovs; They ought to have remembered His assur- 
ance that on the third day He would rise again. 


6. otK gor Ode, GAAG jAyépOy. Like the doubtful words in ver. 3, this 
sentence is wanting in D and important Latin authorities. A reason for the 
omission is hard to find. A very early insertion from Mk. xvi. 6=Mt. 
xxviii. 6 may be suspected: see note at the end of this chapter. 


pvyoOnte. Angels “may be employed in endless ways of which 
we can form no idea, but we have Scripture warrant for supposing 
that they call things to remembrance, and it is not going much 
farther to suppose that they put thoughts into people’s minds” 
(Latham, 4 Service of Angels, p. 162). 

és édddnoev Spiv. The ds is not exactly 67, but suggests the 
wording of the statement: in both ix. 22 and xviii. 32, 33 the im- 
portant ‘fon the third day” is predicted. The whole of this to 
the end of ver. 8 is peculiar to Lk. On the other hand Lk, who 


XXIV. 6-11.]} THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 549 


records no appearances in Galilee, omits mpodye tyas els riHv 
TadtAaiav, which refers back to Mk. xiv. 28; Mt. xxvi. 32. 

7. Set. See on iv. 43 and ix. 22. 

9. imootpépacat. Lk.’s favourite word: Mt. has dmedfotoa 
and Mk. é£eA@otcat. Lk. omits the speed with which they returned 
in mingled fear and joy. 

émmyyethav. Mt. says the same (xxviii. 8), but Mk. says ovdevi 
ovdey elrav, epoSodvto ydp. If we had the conclusion of Mk.’s 
Gospel we should know how this apparent contradiction is to be 
explained. Obviously they did not remain silent about it for the 
rest of their lives, but only so long as fear kept them silent. When 
the fear passed away, they told their tale to the disciples (not 
merely to the Apostles) in accordance with the angelic charge 
(Mt. xxviii. 7). But it is perhaps simpler to suppose that Mt. and 
Lk. here give, as Mt. and Mk. do in the case of the crucified 
robbers, the tradition which was generally current, and which 
attributed to all the women what was true of only one, viz. Mary 
Magdalen. She on her return told the Apostles, while the others 
kept silence through fear. A little later no doubt all told to all. 
Note the characteristic tdvra and wacuv. Mt. has neither, and 
he sums up “the Eleven and all the rest” in rots paéyrats atrod. 

10. The other Evangelists give the names of the women at the 
beginning of the narrative. All four place Mary Magdalen first, 
and Jn. mentions no one else; but ov« oidayev (xx. 2) implies that 
others were with her. ‘Mary the [mother] of James” or “the 
other Mary” is mentioned by all three; Joana by Lk. alone, and 
Salome by Mk. alone. For Joana see on viii. 3: it is from her 
that Lk. may have got both these details, and also what he relates 
xxiii. 8-12. Here only does the order # Mayé. Mapia occur: else- 
where Mapia 4 Mayé. (so D here). 


All English Versions previous to RV. follow a false reading, and make 
one sentence of this verse. There are two sentences. ‘‘ Now they were 
Mary Magdalen, and Joana, and Mary the mother of James”: these were 
the women specially referred to in ver. 9. ‘‘ Also the other women with them 
told these things unto the Apostles.” The evidence against the second ai 
(before &\eyov) is overwhelming (n* AB D EF G Hetc. bde ff,q Sah. Aeth.), 
and the reason for its insertion is obvious. 

Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. interpret 7 "IaxéBov ‘‘the daughter of James.” 
There is little doubt that ‘‘ mother” is meant, and that James is not the 
Lord’s brother, the first president of the Church of Jerusalem. She is called 
“the mother of James and Joses” (Mk. xv. 40), and ‘‘ the mother of Joses ” 
(Mk. xv. 47) ; and she is probably the same as ‘‘ Mary the [wife] of Clopas” 
(Jn. xix. 25). See J. B. Mayor, Zp. of St. James, Macmillan, 1892, p. xv, 
ee the best discussion of the vexed question about the brethren of the 

ord. 
11. évdmov aitav. ‘In their sight,” in the judgment of the Apostles 
and others ; afud zilos (c), in conspeetu eorum (d), coram zllis (f), apostolis (1). 
For évamov see small print on i. 15, and for éaef oni. 56. 


2 


550 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXIV. Il, 12, 


Mjpos. “Nonsense” ; the word “is applied in medical language 
to the wild talk of the sick in delirium” (Hobart): comp. 4 Mac. 
v. 11: here only in N.T. derisus (d), delira (a), deliramentum 
(f Vulg.). The incredulity with which mere reports were received 
is noted [Mk.] xvi. 11. Even S. John did not infer from the dis- 
appearance of the body that He had risen until he had examined 
the tomb himself (Jn. xx. 8). Apparently no one had understood 
Christ’s predictions of His rising again. They were interpreted of 
His return in glory, either with a new body or as an incorporeal being. 
No Apostle had grasped the fact that He would be killed, buried, 
and raised again to life. They had seen Him dead, and women’s 
talk about Angels who said that He was alive did not cancel that. 


Ta pypata tavTa (NX BDL, abcdelq Vulg. Sah. Boh. Syr-Cur. Aeth.) 
is certainly to be preferred to 7a pjuara airav (AIXT A etc. f Arm.). Syr- 
Sin. has ‘* They appeared in their eyes as if they had spoken ¢hese words from 
their wonder.” For neut. plur. with plur. verb, comp. Jn. xix. 31. 


12. § The Visit of Peter to the Tomb. 


The whole of this verse is of unknown and doubtful authority. It is 
absent from important Western documents, and has the look of an insertion. 
Its source is probably Jn. xx. 3-10, part of what is there said of ‘‘ the other 
disciple ” (ver. 5) being here transferred to S. Peter. The only words which 
are not found in Jn. xx. 3-10 are dvaords and Oavydgwy 7d yeyovbs: but of 
these dvagrds (not in Jn. and rare in Mt.) and 7é ‘yeyovés (not in Mt. or Jn. 
and once in Mk.) are specially frequent in Lk. And although Lk. more 
often writes Oavyage él 7p, yet he sometimes has Oavydfew te (vii. 9 ; Acts 
vii. 31). Perhaps the hypothesis of an insertion made in a second edition is 
here admissible. See note on Western Noninterpolations at the end of this 
chapter. 

The verse has probably no connexion with what precedes. Certainly it 
does not give the reason why the Apostles disbelieved, viz. because Peter 
had already been to the tomb and seen no Angels but only grave-cloths. 
That would require ydp for 6é and the pluperf. The 6é would rather mark a 
contrast ; although they disbelieved, yet Peter went to the grave to satisfy 
himself. Didon supposes ¢wo visits of Peter to the tomb, one with John 
when Mary Magdalen reported the tomb empty, and a second when she 
reported that she had seen Angels and the Lord Himself (/. C. ch. xii. 
p- 797). More probably this verse (whatever its source) is an imperfect 
account of the visit of Peter with John. 


Ta 60dva pdva. © “ The grave-cloths without the body.” 


This is the reading of §°>B, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Boh. Sah., omitting 
xelueva, while §* A K II omit néva. L, cf Arm. have pdva xelueva, IXTA 
etc. kelueva, pbva. Cod. Am. has Zosz¢a only, but many MSS. of Vulg. have 
sola posita, 

mpos avtév. So B L, the rest reading mpds éavrév. The words are 
amphibolous (comp. xxiii. 35, 43, 50), and may be taken either with dw7\Gev, 
“*he went away to his home,” z.e. his lodging in the city (Syr-Sin. RV.! 
Hahn), or with Oavydgwy, ‘‘ wondering with himself” (Vulg. Luth. AV. 
RV.?). 


13-32. The Manifestation to the Two Disciples at Emmaus, 


XXIV.18.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 551 


This narrative forms a counterpart to that of the manifestation to 
Mary Magdalen in Jn. There is a condensed allusion to the 
incident in the appendix to Mk. (xvi. 12, 13); but the narrative is 
peculiar to Lk., and is among the most beautiful of the treasures 
which he alone has preserved for us. He almost certainly obtained 
his information from one of the two disciples, and probably :n 
writing. The account has all the effect of personal experience. 
If this is accepted, then Cleopas may be regarded as the narrator ; 
for Lk. would know and be likely to name the person from whom 
he received the account. 


The fact that Lk. was almost certainly a Gentile (Col. iv. 10-14), and that in 
the preface to his Gospel he indicates that he was not an eye-witness, renders the 
conjecture of Theophylact, that Lk. was the unnamed disciple who went with 
Cleopas to Emmaus, very improbable. This disciple was evidently a Jew 
(vv. 20, 27, 32) or a proselyte. Lk. may have been a proselyte before he was a 
Christian, and his preface may mean no more than that he was not one of those 
‘* which from the beginning were eye-witnesses”: but nothing is gained by such 
conjectures. In the Acts he uses the first person plural, when he himself was 
present. Why does he not do the same here, if he was one of the two? It 
would have added greatly to ‘‘the certainty” which he wished to impart to 
Theophilus, if he had assured him that he himself had talked and eaten with 
Jesus on the very day of His Resurrection. But the hypothesis still finds sup- 
porters, ¢.g. Lange, Godet, Bp. Alexander. Origen twice gives Simon as the 
name of the unnamed disciple (Ce/s. ii. 61, 68). This may be an erroneous 
interpretation of 6¢@y Zivw (ver. 34). Epiphanius conjectures Nathanael, 
which could hardly be right, if Nathanael is Bartholomew (ver. 33). But all 
such conjectures are worthless. Probably Lk. himself did not know who the 
other was. 


13. Kat ised. As often, introduces something new and unex 
pected : i. 20, 31, 36, li. 25, v. 12, 18, vii. 12, etc. 

Svo é€ attév. Not of the Apostles (ver. 10), as is shown by 
ver. 33, but of the disciples generally. A direct reference to zacw 
tots Aourois (ver. g) is not manifest. For €v aétq rH jpepasee small 
print on x. 7, and contrast AV. and RV. 


&yjxovta. The reading éxarov éfjxovra (NI K! N' II and some other Gk. 
Lat. and Syr. authorities) is ‘an Alexandrian geographical correction, though 
not of the type of T'epyecnvav or BynOaSapd ; evidently arising from identifica- 
tion of this Emmaus with the better known Emmaus which was later called 
Nicopolis. The identification is distinctly laid down by Eus. Hier. Soz.. 
though they do not refer to the distance” (WH. ii. App. p. 72). Syr-Sin. 
has ‘‘ threescore.” 

*Eppaous. The fortified town afterwards called Nicopolis can- 
not be meant, although all Christian writers from Eusebius to 
the twelfth century assume that it is meant. It is 176 stadia, or 
20 English miles, from Jerusalem ; and it is absurd to suppose that 
these two walked about 20 miles out, took their evening meal, 
walked 20 miles back, and arrived in time to find the disciples still 
gathered together and conversing (ver. 33). Yet Robinson con- 
tends for it (Hes. in Pal. iii. pp. 147-151). £1 Kubeibeh, which is 


552 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 13-17. 


63 stadia from Jerusalem, on the road to Lydda, is probably the 
place. It is about 7 miles N.W. of Jerusalem, in the beautiful 
Wady Beit Chanina, and the tradition in its favour dates from the 
crusades. Of other conjectures, Ku/onieh and Beit Mizzeh are too 
near e to 40 stades), and Xkamasa is not near enough (72 
stades). But Caspari is very confident that Kwlonieh is right 
(p. 242). See D.&.2 and Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Emmaus”; also 
Didon, J. C. App. U. 

14, kat adtot dptdouv. If airoé has any special force, it is “and 
they communed ”—as well as those mentioned in ver. 10. Among 
the disciples this was the topic of conversation. The verb is 
peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (ver. 15; Acts xx. 11, xxiv. 26). The 
meaning of “converse, talk with” is classical, and survives in 
mod. Gk. 

Vulg. leads the way in translating dusAet differently in ver. 14 (/ogue- 
bantur, ‘‘talked” AV.) and ver. 15 (fabularentur, ““communed” AY.). 
See footnote on ii. 9. 

15. nat avtés “Incots. B omits xal, which makes no difference to the 


sense, but is the common constr. after éyévero: see note at the end of ch. i. 
“It came to pass . . . ¢hat Jesus Azmse/f,” about whom they were talking. 


€éyyicas. He overtook them, for they assume that He comes 
from Jerusalem (ver. 18), from which they are walking. 

16. éxpatodvto. There is no eed to assume a special act of 
will on the part of Christ, “ who would not be seen by them till the 
time whea He saw fit.” They were preoccupied and had no 
expectation of meeting Him, and there is good reason for believing 
that the risen Saviour had a glorified body which was not at once 
recognized. Comp. év érépa popdy in the appendix to Mk. 
(xvi. 12), the terror of the disciples (ver. 37), the mistake of Mary 
Magdalen (Jn. xx. 14, 15), and the ignorance of the Apostles on 
the lake (Jn. xxi. 4). But it is quite possible that the Evangelist 
understands the non-recognition of Jesus here and the recognition 
of Him afterwards (ver. 31) to be the results of Divine volition. 
For kpateto8o. comp. Acts ii. 24. See on xvili. 34. 

Tov py. This may mean either ‘in order that they might not” or ‘so 
that they did not.” If the latter is adopted, the negative may be regarded as 
pleonastic. ‘‘ Were holder from knowing” easily passes into “* were holden 
so that they did not know,” or ‘‘were holden that they might not know.” 
Comp. xaréravoav tod uh Ovew (Acts xiv. 18); KwAdoat Tod wy Barri Ojvae 
(Acts x. 47); ot~x UrecreAduny Tod ph dvaryyetAa (Acts xx. 27): see also 
Gen. xvi. 2; Ps. xxxiv. 14, etc. ; Win. xliv. 4. b, p. 409. For émeyvavat 
cone Acts xii. 14, xxvii. 39. ; 

7%. a&vTtBdddete. Here only in N.T. and once only in LXX (2 Mac. 
xi. 13). It looks back to cuvfyreiv (ver. 15). 

Kat éoradnocav oxvOpwrot, This is the reading of § B, e Boh. Sah. It 
is supported by the éorncav of L, and probably by the erasure in A. It is 
adopted by Tisch. Treg. WH. Weiss, RV., but contended against by Field, 
O#. Norv. iii. p. 60. With this reading the question ends at meourarobvres. 
For oxv@pwrol comp. Mt. vi. 16; Gen. xl. 7; Ecclus, xxv. 23, 


XXIV. 18-21.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 553 


18, dvépate KXedras, See ony. 27. The name is not to be identified 
with K\wrds (Jn. xix. 25), which is Aramaic, whereas K)edzras (= KAeérarpos) 
is Greek. The incorrect spelling C/eophas (AV.) comes from some Latin 
MSS. The mention of the name is a mark of reality. 

X0 pdvos mapotkets “lepoucahyp. The pronoun is emphatic. The 
povos cannot mean “onv/y a stranger” (AV.), but either “ the only 
stranger” or “a lonely stranger,” ze. either “Dost thou alone 
sojourn at J.,” or “ Dost thou sojourn alone at J.” The former is 
more probable: see Wetst. and Field for examples. The verb 
occurs only here and Heb. xi. 9 in N.T., but is common in LXX 
of being a stranger or sojourner (Gen. xxi. 23, 34, xxvi. 3, etc.). 
Comp. zdporxos (Acts vii. 6, 29) and mdporxia (Acts xiii. 17). The 
usual construction would be é& “IepovoaAju: but we have yqv nv 
mapotxeis (Gen. xvii. 8; Exod. vi. 4). 

Nota; ‘What kind of things?” The question leads them on 
to open their hearts, and He is able to instruct them. 

ds €yéveto avip tmpopytys. ‘Who proved to be, showed Him- 
self to be, a Prophet.” The avyp is perhaps a mark of respect, as 
in addresses (Acts i. 16, il. 29, 37, vii. 2, etc.) ; or mere amplifica- 
tion, tpopyrys being a kind of adjective. 

Suvatés év €pyw. Comp. Acts vil. 22, xviil. 24; Ecclus. xxi. 8; 
Judith xi. 8. In class. Grk. without ¢v. In Ps. So/. xvii. 38, 42 
we have both constructions, but in a sense different from this. 
With the order comp. 2 Thes. ii. 17: usually Adyos kai épyov. 

évavtiov. He proved Himself to be all this before God and 
man; but no more than this. In thinking Him to be more they 
had made a mistake. 

20. It is not out of any favour to the Romans (Renan) that 
Lk. does not mention their share in the crime. Lk. alone tells us 
that Roman soldiers mocked Jesus on the cross (xxiii. 36). And 
here their share (which was notorious and irrelevant) is implied in 
mapédwxay and éoravpwoar. 

21. jpets S€ AAmiLopev. “ But we were hoping,” until His 
death put an end to our expectation, “that precisely He,” and no 
other, “was the one who should redeem Israel.” Comp. the use 
of 6 péAwy in xxii. 23; Mt. xi. 14; Jn. xii. 4. 

Autpotca. “To cause to be released to oneself, set free for 
oneself the slave of another, redeem, ransom.” Comp. Tit. ii. 14; 
Deut. xiii. 5; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Hos. xiii. 14. 

The of 6¢ elmay justifies us in concluding that vv. 19-24 were spoken 
partly by Cleopas and partly by his companion, But the attempt to assign 
definite portions to each (19, 20 to Cl., 21a to the other, 21b to Cl., and so 
on) is wasted ingenuity. 

&AAa ye. The combination does not occur elsewhere in N.T. In class. 
Grk. another particle must immediately follow, and with this the ye coalesces, 
as a\Xd ye 67 or GANd ye Tot. Otherwise a word or more must separate dAAd 


from x The force of the two is concessive. See Stallbaum on Plat. Fep. 
i, 331 B. 


’ 


554 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 21-25. 


ov Tacw TovToLS. Super hxc omnia (Vulg.): rather a lax use of avy, 
Comp. Neh. v. 18; 3 Mac. i. 22, 


pity tautyy tyépav dye. The verb is probably impersonal: 
“one is keeping the third day, we are at the third day” (Grot. 
Beng. De W. Nosg. Wordsw. Hahn). Perhaps we may understand 
0 “Inaovs (Mey. Godet, Weiss, Alf.): the speaker has an impression 
that there was a prediction about the third day. But it is not 
probable that either 6 Atos, or 6 ovtpavéds, or xpdvos, or Iopayd is 
to be supplied. Comp. zepiéxee ev ypady (1 Pet. ii. 6). The 
onpepov after dye (APXTA etc. Syr-Pesh. Sah. Aeth. Vulg.) 
may be omitted (x B L, Boh. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Arm.) with Tisch. 
WH. RV. 

22. adda Kal. “ Bus, in spite of this disappointment, there is 
also this favourable item.” 

ef 7pOv: and therefore not wanton deceivers. With eééorncav 
comp. éficrdvrwy Acts viii. 9: the trans. use is found nowhere else 
in N.T. There should perhaps be a colon at jas. To put a 
colon (AV.) or semicolon (RV.) at pvyveiov implies that the being 
early at the tomb was the astonishing thing. Better “amazed us: 
having been early at the tomb and having failed to find His body, 
they came, saying,” etc. 

23. 7AOav A€youcat . . . ot Adyouow. It is all hearsay evidence 
and unsatisfactory ; but it is sufficiently disturbing. For the constr. 
see Burton, § 343. 

24. amndOdv tives. If this refers to the visit of Peter and John, 
it confirms the view that ver. 12 was not part of the original 
narrative. The pleonastic xai before ai yuvaixes ought probably to 
be omitted with B D and most Versions. 

attév Sé odk eidov. This was true of Peter and John: and 
perhaps Cleopas and his comrade had left Jerusalem without 
having heard that Mary Magdalen had said that she had seen 
Him. If they had heard it, like the rest, they had disbelieved it, 
and therefore do not think it worth mentioning. 


25. avéyrov. Four quite different Greek words are translated ‘‘ fool ” in 
AV.; dvénros (elsewhere ‘‘ foolish,” Gal. iii. 1, 3; 1 Tim. vi. 9; Tit. iii. 3), 
&cogos (Eph. v. 15), &ppwy (xi. 40, xii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 36, etc.), and pwpds 
Mt. v. 22, xxiii. 17, [19]; 1 Cor. iii. 18, iv. 10). The latter two are much 
stronger in meaning than the former two. Here the Latin translations vary 
between zmsensatz (acde) and s¢u/¢z (f Vulg.), as in xi. 40 between zszpientes 
(c) and s¢/tz (f Vulg.): xii. 20 and Mt. xxiii. 17 all have s¢w/tws, Mt. v. 22 
all fatuus. . “ae 

Bpaseis .. . Tod morevew emi mac ols, The gen. is one of limita- 
tion depending upon fpadets, which occurs here only in bibl. Grk. Comp. 
€rowmor To dvedeiv (Acts xxill. 15): €roupor Tod éAOetv (1 Mac. v. 39). Else- 
where Lk. has the acc. after musrevew émt (Acts ix. 42, xi. 17, XVi. 31, XXII. 
19), in all which cases the object of the belief is a person. The difference is 
between faith resting upon, and faith directed towards, an object. Note the 
characteristic attraction ; see small print on iii. 19. 


1 


XXIV. 25-27.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 555 


émt maow ofs édddyoay of mpopitar. There is special point in 
the zacw. Like most Jews, they remembered only the promises of 
the glories of the Messiah, and ignored the predictions of His 
sufferings. We cannot well separate éml waow from morevew and 
take éxi=“‘on the top of, after, in spite of”: “slow of heart to 
believe, in spite of all that the Prophets have spoken” (Hahn). 
Still more unnatural is Hofmann’s proposal to transfer these words 
to the next verse: “On the basis of all that the Prophets have 
spoken ought not Christ,” etc. 

26. odxi taita ede. “ Behoved it not the Christ to suffer 
these very things and thus enter into His glory?” According to 
the Divine decree respecting the Messiah as expressed in prophecy, 
precisely the things which these two had allowed to destroy their 
hopes were a confirmation of them. The tatra stands first with 
emphasis: for ede comp. ix. 22, xiil. 33, xvii. 25, etc. There is no 
need to understand de? with cioeAGeiy in order to make it clear that 
He had not yet entered. Grammatically ée. belongs to both 
verbs, but it chiefly influences zaGeiv: the suffering comes first, 
and is the road to the glory. Comp. ver. 46. The same is said of 
Christ’s followers Acts xiv. 22. 

27. amd Mouvcéws. For the form see on ii. 22. Such prophecies 
as Gen. iii. 15, xxii. 18; Num. xxiv. 17; Deut. xviii. 15, and such 
types as the scape-goat, the manna, the brazen serpent, and the 
sacrifices, are specially meant. Comp. Acts viii. 35. 

kat amd wdvtwy Tav mpodytav. This may be regarded as a lax 
construction not likely to be misunderstood: comp. érepot kaxotpyot 
dvo (xxiii. 32). But this is not necessary, for with each Messianic 
passage there was a fresh start in the interpretation. It does 
not help much to say that Moses and the Prophets are here con- 
sidered as one class in distinction from the rest of O.T., and that 
the meaning is that He began with these and thence passed to the 
Psalms (ver. 44) and other books (Hofm. Hahn). The repetition 
of the ad shows that the Prophets are regarded as separate from 
the Pentateuch. The literal meaning of the characteristic rdvrwyv 
and wagacts may stand, but need not be pressed. There is 
nothing incredible in the supposition that He quoted from each 
one of the Prophets. 


Steppjvevoev (N° PE LU) supported by diypyjveveer (M) is probably right, 
rather than dcepujvever (AG PXITAA) or Oimpurvevev (EHKSVTI etc.). 
But instead of dpEapevos ee - dtepurvevoev we have in D qv dpiduevos ard 
Mwvoéws kai 7. T. Tp. éunvetew, erat incipiens a mosen. et omnium prophee- 
tarum interpretart (d); also erat incipiens . . . interpretans (bfi,r), fuit 
incipiens . . . interpretans (ce), erat inchoans . . . interpretans (a). But 
f Vile. have ef incipiens .. . interpretabatur. The xat dtepunvevtew of 
&* points to some form of this Western reading. 


S.eppiveucev . . « Ta wept Eauto. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 30, xiv. 


556 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXIV. 27-30. 


5, 13, 27. In Acts ix. 36 and 2 Mac. i. 36 the verb is used of 
interpreting a foreign language. Neither yeypappeva (De W. Mey. 
Weiss) nor anything else is to be understood with ra zept éavrod: 
see small print on xxii. 37. 

28. mpocetoujcato. No unreal acting a part is implied. He 
began to take leave of them, and wou/d have departed, had they 
not prayed Him to remain. Comp. His treatment of the disciples 
on the lake (Mk. vi. 48), and of the Syrophenician woman (Mk. 
vii. 27). Prayers are part of the chain of causation. 

The Latin Versions suggest pretending what was not meant: fimxét se 
(bef ff,), dzxzt se (1), fecet se (d), semulavzt se (e), adfectabat se (a). But all 
of these, excepting the last, support mpoceroujoaro (NX ABDL) against 
mpocerrotetro (PXT'AATI). The rpocmoretsOar did not continue. The verb 


does not occur elsewhere in N.T. Comp. Job xix. 14. 
In this verse od for of or eis #v is genuine ; not in xxii. 10, 


29. wapeBidoavto. Moral pressure, especially by entreaty, is 
meant: Acts xvi. 15; Gen. xix. 9; 1 Sam. xxviii. 23; 2 Kings 
ii. 17, v. 16. In the last case the urgent entreaty is unsuccessful, 
and therefore the word does not imply compulsion. Comp. 
avaykacov eioe ety (xiv. 23). 

Metvov peO” av. Combined with what follows, this implies a 
dwelling, which may have been the home of one of ‘ne two. Their 
allowing Him to preside does not prove that it was aninn. In 
their enthusiasm they naturally left the chief place to Him. On 
the other hand, pe’ judy is simply “in our company,” not neces- 
sarily “at our house”: comp. ovy airois below. 


mpos Eomépav. Comp. Gen. viii. 11; Exod. xii. 6; Num. ix. 11; Zech. 
xiv. 7. The classical éo7épa is very freq. in LXX, but in N.T. is peculiar to 
Lk. (Acts iv. 3, xxviii. 23). So also xAlyw of the declining day (ix. 12): 
comp. Jer. vi. 4. 

The #5 after xéxXcxey (8 BL 1 33, abefff, Vulg. Boh.) is doubtless 
genuine. Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. parbinse the sentence: ‘‘ And they began 
to entreat Him that He would (abide) with them, because it was nearly 
dark.” 


830. év 1G KatakdOjvar. “After He had sat down”; not “as 
He sat down” (AV.), nor dum recumberet (Vulg.): see on iii. 21. 
In N.T. the verb is peculiar to Lk. (vii. 36, ix. 14, 15, xiv. 8): 
comp. Judith xii. 15. 

aBav tov dptov. “He took the bread” that was usual, or 
“the loaf” that was there. That this was a celebration of the 
eucharist (Theophylact), and a eucharist swab und specie, is an im- 
probable hypothesis. To support it Maldonatus makes e& 7@ 
kataxd. mean “after He had supped,” as a parallel to pera ro 
Semvjoae (xxii. 20). But the imperf. éwedédov is against the theory 
of a vucharist. In the Last Supper there is no change from aor. 
to imperf. such as we have here and in the Miracles of the Five 
Thousand (xatéxAacey kat édiSov, ix. 16) and of the Four Thousand 


XXIV. 80-32. ] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 557 


(ékXacev kat edidov, Mk viii. 6). In none of the Gospels is the 
imperf. used of the eucharist (xxii. 19; Mk. xiv. 22; Mt. xxvi. 26), 
nor in 1 Cor. xi. 23. Wordsworth, although he regards this as a 
eucharist, points out that “bread” was to the Jews a general 
name for food, including drink as well as meat; and that to “eat 
bread” and “break bread” are general terms for taking refresh- 
ment. That the bread was blessed in order that it might open 
the eyes of the disciples is also improbable: the evAdyncer is the 
usual grace before meat. It was the breaking of the bread on the 
part of Jesus, rather than their own partaking of the bread, which 
helped them to see who He was: see ver. 35. 

81. Sinvolxyoav ot épOadpot. This must be explained in 
harmony with ver. 16. If the one implies Divine interposition, 
so also does the other. These two had not been present at the 
Last Supper, but they had probably often seen Jesus preside at 
meals ; and something in His manner of taking and breaking the 
bread, and of uttering the benediction, may have been the means 
employed to restore their power of recognizing Him. Wright’s con- 
jecture that the eucharist was instituted long before the Last Supper 
is unnecessary. Comp. Gen. xxi. 19; 2 Kings vi. 20; Gen. iil. 5, 7. 


For the augment see WH. ii. App. p. 161. All three forms, jvolx@nr, 
dvesxOnv, and jvegxOnv, are found well attested in N.T. Gregory, Prolegom. 
Pp» 121. Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. add ‘‘ immediately” to ‘‘ were opened.” 


dpavtos éyévero. ‘‘He vanished, became invisible”: comp. 
ver. 37, Vi. 36, xil. 40, Xvi. II, 12, xix. 17. It is very unnatural to 
take éyévero with dw aitév and make dd¢avros adverbial: “ He 
departed from them without being seen.” Something more than 
a sudden departure, or a departure which they did not notice until 
He was gone, is intended. We are to understand disappearance 
without physical locomotion: but we know too little about the 
properties of Christ’s risen body to say whether this was super- 
natural or not. Nowhere else in bibl. Grk. does a&davtos occur: 
in class. Grk. it is poetical. In 2 Mac. iil. 34 ddaveis éyévovto is 
used of Angels ceasing to be visible. The am airéy implies no 
more than withdrawal from their sight: to what extent His 
presence was withdrawn we have no means of knowing. But His 
object was accomplished ; viz. to convince them that He was the 
Messiah and still alive, and that their hopes had not been in vain. 
To abide with them in the old manner was not His object. 


The Latin Versions vary much, but none of them suggest a mere quiet 
withdrawal: susguam comparuzt ab ets (ce ff) or zits (a), non comparuzt ab 
ezs (dr), znvzsus factus est ets (bf), non aptarens factus est ab ets (6), 
evanuit ex oculis sorum (Vulg.). Syr-Sin. has ‘“‘ He was lifted away from 
them”: so also Syr-Cur. Respecting Jos. Av xx. 8. 6 see p. xxx. 


82. katonévn Av. The periphrastic tense emphasizes the con 


558 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XXIV. 32-34. 


tinuance of the emotion. Common and natural as the metaphor 
is, it seems to have been misunderstood ; and hence the reading 
kexadvppéevn (D), perhaps from 2 Cor. ili. 14-16 ; while excecatum 
(c), and optusum (1) seem to imply zerypwyevy as another cor- 
rection. Other variations are exterminatum (e) and gravatum 
(Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Sah. Arm.). They regard the glow in their 
hearts as further proof that it was indeed Jesus who was with them 
as they walked. 

js éhdder . . . @s Siyvoryev. ‘While He was speaking... 
while He was opening.” Note the asyndeton and the use of the 
same verb for the opening of their eyes and the opening of the ~ 
Scriptures. 

33-43. §The Manifestation to the Eleven and the other 
Disciples at Jerusalem. We cannot determine whether this is 
the same appearance as Jn. xx. 19. If it is, then tovds évdexa is 
not exact, for on that occasion Thomas was absent; and in any 
case it is improbable that he was present. If he was, why was 
the incident which convinced him delayed for a week? Can 
we suppose that. he withdrew between vv. 35, 36? It is much 
simpler to suppose that “the Eleven” is used inaccurately. 

33. atti tH dpa. “That very hour”: comp. x. 7. The 
lateness of the hour, which they had urged upon their guest 
(ver. 29), does not deter them. Note the characteristic dvactdvres 
(i. 39, iv. 29, etc.) and dwéotpepar (i. 56, ii. 20, 39, 43, 45, etc.). 
It was in order that others might share their great joy that they 
returned at once to Jerusalem. Yet D cde Sah. insert Avrovpevot 
(tristes, contristati) after avaordvres. 

7Opocpévous. This is the reading of & B D 33, adopted by all the best 
editors. The verb is not rare in LXX, but occurs here only in N.T. TR. 
has cuvnbp. with A LP X etc., a verb which is found in N.T, only in Acts 
xii. 12, xix. 25. 

rods adv attots. Much the same as zavres of Nouroi (ver. 9). 
Comp. Acts i. 14. 

34. déyovras. This was the statement with which the 
assembled disciples greeted the two from Emmaus. The 
appendix to Mk. cannot be reconciled with this. There we are 
told that, so far from the two being met by news that the Lord 
was risen, their own story was not believed (xvi. 13). 

& Oy Lipwvn. There is no other mention of this manifestation 
in the Gospels; but S. Paul quotes it in the first rank as evidence 
of the Resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 5): and this coincidence between 
the Evangelist and the Apostle cannot well be accidental. It 
confirms the belief that this Gospel is the work of one who was 
intimate with S. Paul. For é6n see on xxii. 43. This manifesta- 
tion apparently took place after the two had started for Emmaus 
and before the disciples assembled at Jerusalem. The Apostle 


XXIV. 34-39.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 559 


“most in need of comfort was the first to receive it.” But Lange 
is fanciful when he adds, “‘ We here learn that after his fall Peter 
named himself, and was named in the Church, Simon, not Peter” 
(Z. of C. iii. p. 387). See on vi. 14. 

85. kai adtol é€nyodvro. “And they on their side rehearsed.” 
Excepting Jn. i. 8, the verb occurs only here and Acts x. 8, 
XV. 12, 14, xxi. 19. Note that the Lord’s breaking of the bread, 
and not their partaking of it, is spoken of as the occasion of their 
recognizing Him. Syr-Sin. has “as He brake bread.” 

36. gory ev péow. A sudden appearance, analogous to the 
sudden disappearance (ver. 31), is intended. See on viii. 7. On 
the words xai A€yet atrois Eipyvy tyiv, which look like a very 
early insertion from Jn. xx. 19, see note at the end of the chapter. 
They express what is true in fact, but is probably not part of the 
original text of Lk. 


87. wrondévtes Sé. There is some confusion of text here. This is the 
reading of AL PXT'A etc. supported by conturbatique (b fi,), turbati autem 
(ce), e¢ conturbati (1), conturbati vero (f Vulg.). But D has adrol 6¢ rronGév- 
Tes, ipst autem paverunt (d), & poBnOévres 5¢, exterriti autem (a),, and B 
OponGévres. The last may possibly be right. Syr-Sin. has ‘‘shaken” both 
here and for rerapaypévo: in ver, 38. 


mveopa, ‘The disembodied spirit of a dead person, a ghost.” 
Comp. ¢dvracpa (Mt. xiv. 26), which D has here. Thomas 
would explain away their evidence by maintaining that this first 
impression respecting what they saw was the right one. For 
EppoBor yevépevor see on ver. 5; and for this use of zveipa 
comp. 1 Pet. iii. 19. To introduce the notion of an evi spirit 
is altogether out of place. 


38. rt... wal Sa 7h Soin NAXTAA*H, quid... et quare, 
abcefff,1 Syr-Cur. ‘‘Why... and sera RV. But DLhave ri 
.- «= Wa rl, and BA? ri... rl, Syr-Sin. has yea » » why, Tert. guid 
... guid. Vulg. inaccurately omits the second guzd. 

avaBatvovow év Tq Kapdiq tpav. So A* @) BD, 7 corde vestro 
(abceff,l. Sah. Aeth.); for which é tais xapdias dua (SA'LXTA 
etc.), 2 cordibus vestris (f Syt-Sin.), is an obvious correction. Vulg. is 
again the least accurate with i” corda vestra. Nowhere else does dvaB. & 
Ty kapdig occur: elsewhere éwl ri x. (Acts vii. 23) or éxt xapdlay (1 Cor. 
ii. 9; Jer. iii. 16). 


39. Were tas xeipds pou kal tos wé8as. This seems to imply 
that His feet as well as His hands had been nailed. Jesus first 
convinces them of His identity,—that He is the Master whom 
they supposed that He had lost; and secondly of the reality of 
His body,—that it is not merely the spirit of a dead Master that 
they see. 


Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. AV. all have ‘‘ Behold .. . see” for ere... 
iSere. Wic. Rhem, RV. follow vzdete . . . videte of Vulg. with ‘See. os 


560 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 39-41. 


see.” The first refers to the test of identity, the sight of the wound-prints, 
the second to the test of reality, the sense of touch. 


Ynrabjoaré pe. 1 Jn. i. 1 seems to be a direct reference to 
this passage: the same verb is used. The remarkable quotation 
in Ignatius (Smyr. iii. 1) should be compared: ore zpos tovs zrepi 
Ilérpov 7AGev, py avrois:s AdBere, WyAadyoaté pe, Kal tere Gre 
ovk eiut Saydviov dowuatov. Eusebius (4. £. iii. 36. 11) does 
not know whence Ignatius got these words. Jerome more than 
once gives the Gospel according to the Hebrews as the source of 
the saying about the écorporale demonium. Origen says that it 
comes from the Zeaching of Peter. As all three writers knew the 
Gospel according to Hebrews well, the testimony is perplexing. 
We may conjecture that Origen is right, that Eusebius had never 
seen the passage, and that Jerome’s memory has failed him. 
That it is quite possible to forget much of a book that one has 
translated, every translator will admit. See Lft. on Ign. Smyr. iii. 

ért mvedpa. Once more an ambiguous 6re: comp. xix. 31, 43, 
xxli. 70, etc. But “because” or “for” (AV. RV. Nosg. Godet, 
Weiss) is much more probable than “that” (Mey. Hahn). Comp. 
ov yap ert odpKas Te Kal doréa ives éxovow (Hom. Od. xi. 219). 


40. The evidence against this verse is exactly the same as against the 
doubtful words in ver. 36 with the addition of Syr-Cur. It may be regarded 
as an adaptation of Jn. xx. 20, cal ri m\evpdy being changed into xal rods 
médas to suit ver. 39. Apelles in Hipp. Ref. vii. 26 combines the two, 
delEavra Tods Turous TOY Hwy Kal THS wAevpas. Tertullian uses ver. 40 to 
answer Marcion’s perversion of ver. 39 (iv. 43). See note p. 568. 


41. dmotovvtwy aitav amd tis xapas. A remark, “which, 
with many similar expressions, we owe to the most profound 
psychologist among the Evangelists.” Vix sibimet ipsi pre 
necopinato gaudio credentes (Livy, xxxix. 49). For this use of amd 
comp. xxi. 26, xxii. 45; Acts xii. 14; Mt. xiii. 44, xiv. 26, etc. 

Exeté tte Bpdoipov evOdde; The objection that, if Jesus took 
food in order to convince them that He was no mere spirit, 
when food was not necessary for the resurrection-body, He was 
acting deceitfully, does not hold. The alternative—“either a 
ghost, or an ordinary body needing food”—is false. There is a 
third possibility: a glorified body, capable of receiving food. 
Is there any deceit in taking food, which one does not want, in 
order to place others, who are needing it, at their ease? With the 
double sign granted here, the handling and the seeing Him eat, 
comp. the double sign with Moses’ rod and hand (Exod. iv. 1-8), 
and with Gideon’s fleece (Judg. vi. 36-40). For Bpdo.pov comp. 
Lev. xix. 23; Ezek. xlvii. 12; Neh. ix. 25: not elsewhere in N.T. 

ev0déSe: rare in LXX, and in N.T., excepting Jn. iv. 15, 16, 
peculiar to Lk. (Acts x. 18, xvi. 28, xvii. 6, xxv. 17, 24). 


XXIV. 42-44.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 561 


42. xal awd pedtootov xyplov. The evidence against these words is 
far stronger than against any of the other doubtful passages in this chapter 
(zv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52). Here SABDL, de Boh. Syr-Sin. omit 
the whole, while ab omit me//is. Clem-Alex. Orig. Eus. Cyr-Alex. speak ot 
the broiled fish in a way which makes it very improbable that they would 
have omitted the honey-comb, had it been contained in their copies of the 
Gospel. N X are the best uncials which contain the words, and of these X 
with E* has xnplov for xyptov. Even Godet admits that not only here, but 
in vv. 36 and 40, the disputed words are probably interpolations. 


43. évdmov aitav Epayev. Comp. oltiwes cuwvedayouey xal 
cuveriopey ait@ peTa TO avacrHvat avrov éx vexpov (Acts x. 41). 
Nothing is said here or in the meal at Emmaus about drinking, 
but are we to infer that nothing was drunk ? 


K II and some cursives with many Versions (Syr-Cur. Syr-Hier. Boh. 
Aeth. Arm. c Vulg.) after &paryer add xal [AaBaw] ra exMorwa Edwxev atrois, 
sumens religuias dedit es. 


44-49. Christ’s Farewell Instructions. This section seems to 
be a condensation of what was said by Christ to the Apostles 
between the Resurrection and the Ascension, partly on Easter 
Day and partly on other occasions. But we have no sure data by 
which to determine what was said that same evening, and what 
was spoken later. Thus Lange assigns only ver. 44 to Easter 
Day, Godet at least vv. 44, 45, Euthymius vv. 44-49, while 
Meyer and others assign all the remaining verses also (44-53) to 
this same evening. On the other hand Didon would give the 
whole of this section to a later occasion, after the manifestations 
in Galilee. It is evident that the command to remain & 7p 
mode (ver. 49) cannot have been given until after those manifesta- 
tions, and was almost certainly given in ferusalem. 

44. Eimey 8€ mpds adrovs. This new introduction points to a 
break of some kind between vv. 43 and 44; but whether of 
moments or of days we cannot be certain. It is probable that 
Lk. himself, when he wrote his Gospel, did not know what the 
interval was. This was one of several points about which he had 
obtained more exact information when he wrote the first chapter 
of the Acts. 

OGror ot Adyor. “‘ These are My words, which I spake unto you 
formerly (and repeat now), viz. that all things,” etc. 

ért Gv olv Guiv: refers to His intercourse with them before His 
death, a mode of intercourse which is entirely at an end: comp. Acts 
ix. 39. Not that the new intercourse will be less close or con- 
tinuous, but it will be of a different kind. His being visible is 
now the exception and not the rule, and He is ceasing to share in 
the externals of their lives. That the words refer to what He said 
during the walk to Emmaus (ver. 26) is most improbable. Christ 
is addressing all the disciples present, not merely those who walked 

26 


562 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 44-46 


with Him to Emmaus. Such passages as xviii. 31-33 and ix. 22 
are meant. 

év 74 véuw Mavoéas Kat [rots] mpopytais kat adpors. This is 
the only place in N.T. in which the tripartite division of the 
Hebrew Canon of Scripture is clearly made. But it does not 
prove that the Canon was at this time fixed and closed; nor need 
we suppose that ‘‘ Psalms” here means the whole of the Kethubim 
or Hagiographa. Of that division of the Jewish Scriptures the 
Psalter was the best known and most influential book ; and, more- 
Over, it contained very much about the Messiah. Hence it is 
naturally singled out as representative of the group. In the pro- 
logue to Ecclesiasticus we have the tripartite division in three 
slightay different forms (1) “the Law and the Prophets and others 
that have followed their steps”; (2) “the Law and the Prophets 
and other books of our fathers” ; (3) “‘the Law and the Prophets 
and the rest of the books.” Elsewhere we have “the Law and 
the Prophets” (xvi. 16; Mt. vii. 12); “Moses and the Prophets” 
Xvi. 29, 31, xxiv. 27); and ‘“‘the Law of Moses and the Prophets” 
Acts xxviii. 23); where the third division is not to be regarded as 
excluded because not specially mentioned. Ryle, Canon of the 
O.T. pp. 150, 191, 291. 

Note that the prep. is not repeated with either rpo¢ijrais or adwois, and that 
the art. is not repeated with Yadwois and not quite certainly with mpopyrats : 
the three divisions are regarded as one storehouse of Messianic prophecy. 
The evidence stands thus: xal mpogjras (ADNXTAATL, et prophets 
Latt.), xat rots xpogjrats (B, Boh.), év rots mpod. (SN), Kal év Tots mpog. (L). 


45. This opening of their understanding is analogous to that 
in ver. 31. Comp. Acts xvi. 14, xxvi. 18; 2 Mac. i. 4. Godet re- 
gards this as parallel to “He breathed on them, and saith unto 
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (Jn. xx. 22). It was by the 
gift of the Spirit that their minds were open to understand. Con- 
trast xviii. 34. D has diujvvéer (sic) airav tov vodv, but d has 
adaperti sunt eorum sensus. 

46. Godet would put a full stop at ypag¢ds and make xal eirev 
airois introduce a fresh summary of what was said, possibly on 
another occasion. It is very unnatural to make 67 mean “ be- 
cause” or “for,” and take it as the beginning of Christ’s words. 
“He opened their minds and (in explanation of this act) said to 
them, Because thus it is written,” etc. (Mey.). It is more doubt- 
ful whether ér: introduces the ovatio recta (Weiss, Hahn), in which 
case it is left untranslated (AV. RV.), or the ovatio obliqua 
(Rhem.). 

otras yéypartat waleiy tov Xpiotév. Thus SN BC*L, Aeth. Syr. 
Harcl. So also D, abcdeff,lr Boh., but with tov Xpiordy before wadety. 


Syr-Sin. and Arm. substitute for yéypamra: the @e. of the similar ver. 26, 
while AC-NXTAAT, fq Vulg. insert kat obrws é6e after yéypamrrat, and 


XXIV. 46-49.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 563 


ce Cypr. omit ofrws. All are attempts to get rid of abruptness, and perhaps 
the reading of A C? etc. is a conflation of & B etc. with Syr-Sin. and Arm. 
D omits é« vexpar. 


For the aor. infin. referring to what is future in reference to the main verb 
see Burton, § 114. 


47. én 76 dvdpate adtod. ‘On the basis of all that His name 
implies”: it is His Messiahship which makes repentance effectual. 
Comp. the use of émi 7d dv. ix. 48, 49, xxi. 8; Acts iv. 17, 18, 
v. 28, 40, etc. 

petdvovay eis aheow dpaptiwv, The els (8 B, Boh. Syr.) was 
corrected to xai (AC DN X etc.) on account of the second es. 
The eis is confirmed by iii. 3; Mt. xxvi. 28; Mk. i. 4: comp. ryv 
perdvotay els Cwyv (Acts xi. 18). Comp. also Mt. xxviii. 19. 


GpEdpevor, It is difficult to decide between taking this as a rather violent 
anacoluthon, as if ‘‘that ye should preach” had preceded, and making it 
the beginning of a new sentence, ‘‘ Beginning from Jerusalem ye are‘ wit- 
nesses of these things.” The former is perhaps better. The correction dptd- 
pevov (A C® etc.) is meant to agree with rdv Xpiordév, or perhaps to be an 
impers. acc. abs. like éf4v, mapdv. Comp. dd dé Ilocesdytov rébduos, aptd- 
pevov amd Tavrns wéxpe Alyimrov (Hdt. iii. 91. 1), The priority of the Jewish 
nation in its right to the Gospel is still acknowledged, in spite of their 
rejection of the Messiah. D has dptauévwy, d zncepzentzum. 

8, tpets paptupes TovtTwv. The omission of éoré is against taking 
dp&dwevor dad lep. with this clause. That éové is rightly omitted (B D, Aeth. 
Aug.) is shown by its being inserted sometimes before (% A C® L etc.) some- 
times after (C*) udprupes. AC? XT etc. have tues 56, D kal duets 56 NB 
C* L, Boh. Syr-Harcl. have tuets alone. The omission of both conjunction 
and verb makes the sentence more forcible and duets more emphatic. That 
bearing testimony respecting the Passion and Resurrection was one of the 
main functions of an Apostle is manifest from Acts i. 8, 22, ii. 32, ili. 15, 
Vv. 32, X. 39, 41, etc. 


49. kal iSod éyd. The éyd balances the preceding tyets. “I 
have told you your part: this is mine.” The idov is wanting in 
SDL, Latt. Boh. Syr-Sin. The combination idod éyd (vii. 27, 
xxiii. 14; Acts x. 21, xx. 22) is extraordinarily frequent in LXX. 

éfarootéh\\w Thy émayyediav. Present of what will come in the 
immediate and certain future. Here first in the Gospels have we 
érayyeAia in the technical sense of the “promise of God to His 
people”: see on Rom. i. 2. The gift of the Spirit is specially 
meant: comp. Is. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 27; Joel ii. 28; Zech. 
xii. 10. “The promise” therefore means the thing promised. 
For idod eyo égarooréAdw comp. Jer. viii. 17; iSov éyd dzroatéAda, 
vii. 27; Mt. x. 16; Mal. iv. 4 [iii. 23]: S* ACDNTIT ATI have 
dmoocrehkAw here. In Jn. xv. 26 and xvi. 7, where, as here, Christ 
speaks of the Spirit as His gift, réuw is used: in Jn. xiv. 16 the 
Father dace: at the petition of Christ. 

ipets Sé xaBicate év TH mode. Once more an emphatic contrast 
between éy# and dpets. For xafifew of spending some time in a 


564 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 49-51 


place comp. Acts xviii. 11; Exod. xvi. 29; Judg. xi. 17, xix. 4; 
Ruth iii. 1 [ii. 23]; 1 Sam. i. 23, etc. With the command here 
given comp. Acts i. 4. To suppose that it was spoken on Easter 
Day involves a contradiction with Mt. xxviii. 7, 10, 16; Mk. xvi. 7; 
Jn. xxi. 1. It implies patient waiting. 

evdtonoe . . Sdvay. The metaphor is common both in 
N.T. and LXX: Rom. xili. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 53; Gal. iii. 27; Col. 
ili. 10; Eph. iv. 24; Job vili. 22, xxix. 14, xxxix. 19; Ps. xxxiv. 26, 
xcil. 1, etc. There is no need to discuss whether the Spirit is the 
dvvapis Or confers it. 


According to the best texts (§ BC* L 33, Eus. Syr-Hier.) €& Sous pre- 
cedes d¥vayuv and immediately follows évdvcnaGe, to which it belongs. Comp. 
Is. xxxii, 15. 


50-53. The Ascension and the Conclusion of the Gospel. It 
is not improbable that, at the time when he wrote his Gospel, Lk. 
did not know the exact amount of interval between the Resurrec- 
tion and the Ascension. That was a piece of information which 
he may easily have gained between the publication of the Gospel 
and of the Acts. And while he does not state either here or 
ver. 44 that there was any interval at all, still less does he say that 
there was none: there is no ev airy TH jpyépa (ver. 13). Being 
without knowledge, or not considering the matter of importance, 
he says nothing about the interval. But it is incredible that 
he can mean that, late at night (vv. 29, 33), Jesus led them out to 
Bethany, and ascended in the dark. So remarkable a feature 
would hardly have escaped mention. Probably d¢€ both here and 
in ver. 44 introduces a new occasion. 

50. éws pds ByPaviay. It is doubtful wether this can mean 
“until they were over against Bethany.” Field regards zpos after 
éws aS a mere expletive and compares xat adikero ews mpds avOpwrdv 
twa "OdodAapirny (Gen. xxxvili. 1). In LXX éws eis is common, 
and many texts (AC* XI AATI) substitute éws eis here for ws 
mpos (¥BC*L). D has zpés without éws. The efw after avrovs 
(A C3D X etc.) is omitted by s BC* L 33, ac Boh. Syr. Arm. 


The well-known passage in the Zpzstle of Barnabas (xv. 9) is probably only 
a clumsily expressed explanation for keeping Sunday as a day of joy; viz. be-_ 
cause Jesus on that day rose from the dead, and (not to die again, as Lazarus 
and others,—on the contrary) manifested Himself and ascended into heaven. 
Acd Kal dyouer Thy jucpay Thy dyddnv els eUppocivyy, ev 7 Kal 6 Inoods dvéorn éx 
vexpav, kal pavepwhels dvéBy els ovpavots. Grammatically év 7 belongs to dvéBn 
as well as to dvéorn, and with Hefele we must admit the possibility that 
Barnabas believed that the Ascension took place on Sunday. But Funk is 
right in saying that év 7 is perhaps not intended to go beyond dvéorn ék vexpav. 
Dressel’s expedient, however, of putting a full stop at éx vexp@v, is rather violent. 
Harmer does not place even a comma between the clauses. 


51. Sidorn dt adtay. “ Parted, withdrew from them.” The verb 


XXIV. 51-53.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION = 565 


is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xxii. 59; Acts xxvii. 28). This refers 
to the Ascension, whatever view we take ef the disputed words 
which follow. Weiss holds that, if the doubtful words are rejected, 
we must interpret diéorq of mere withdrawal, as after previous 
appearances ; and that Lk. purposely reserves the narrative of the 
Ascension for the Acts. But at least a fiza/ departure is meant. 
It is evidem that ver. 50 is preparatory to a final withdrawal, and 
that vv. 52, 53 are subsequent to such an event. And was there 
ever a time when Lk. could have known of Christ’s final with- 
drawal without knowing of the Ascension? In the Acts (i. 1, 2) 
he expressly states that 6 mpirros Adyos contained an account of 
the work of Jesus dypt 7s qyepas . . . avedknphOy. He himself, 
therefore, considered that he had recorded the Ascension in his 
Gospel. 


cal dvedépeto els tov been: The important witnesses which omit 
the disputed words in vv. 3, 6, 9, 36, 40 are here joined by &* and Aug. 
No motive for their omission, if they were in the original document, can be 
suggested. They lock like a gloss on éi¢orq: but it is conceivable that Lk. 
himself (or Theophilus) may have added them in a second edition of the 
Gospel, in order to make it quite clear what diéorn dm’ atrGv meant. See 
p- 569. Note the change from aor. to imperf. 

52. mpooxvvycavtes aitév. This again is either a very ancient gloss 
or an insertion made by the Evangelist in a second copy. See the note at 
the end of the chapter. Comp. Mt. xxviii. 17. 


inéotpepay eis “lepouoahyjp: in obedience to xaficate év Ti 
moe (ver. 49). 

peta xapas peyddns. A writer of fiction would have made 
them lament the departure of their Master: comp. Jn. xiv. 28, 
xvi. 6, 7, 20, 22, 23. 

Note how the marks of Lk’s style continue to ee end. In 
ver. 51 we have éyévero, €v TG evAoyetv, dv€ory: in ver. 52 Kal 
avtoi, t7éotpeway, and the addition of »éyas to an expression 
of emotion (ii. 9, 10, viii. 37 ; Acts v. 5, 11, xv. 3). 

58. fav 8a tavrds €v 7H iep@. These words are to be taken 
together: j#aav does nut belong to the participle, and this is not 
an example of the periphrastic imperf. (Hahn). The continued 
attendance of the disctpies in the temple is recorded in the Acts 
(ii. 46, ill. 1, v. 21, 42). It savours of childish captiousness to 
find a contradiction between 6a zavrés here and Acts i. 13, where 
it is stated, and ii. 44, where it is implied, that the Apostles 
were sometimes elsewhere than in the temple. No reasonable 
critic would suppose that 6.4 zavrds is meant with absolute strict- 
ness. It is a popular expression, implying great frequency in their 
attendance both at the services and at other times. Comp. what 
is said of Anna, ii. 37, which is stronger in wording and may mean 
more. 


566 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 53. 


Lachm. Treg. WH. Weiss write 6:4 wavrés, while Tisch. Wordsw. and 
the Revisers prefer duaravrés. Comp. Acts ii. 25, x. 2, xxiv. 16; Mt. xviii. 
10; Mk. v. 5, etc. 

evhoyotvtes. The reading is uncertain. There is little doubt that alvoiy- 
tes kal eddoyoovres (AC? XT ATI, cfq Vulg. Syr-Pesh. Syr-Harcl. Arm.) 
and ed\oyobvres kal alvodyres (Aeth.) is a conflation. But is alvotvyres (D, 
abdff,1 Boh. Aug. Tisch.) or evAoyotvres (§ BC*L, Syr-Sin. Syr-Hier. 
Weiss, WH. RV.) the original? The fact that alvodyres is a favourite word 
with Lk. does not turn the scale in its favour: evAoyobvres might be corrected 
to alvodvres for this very reason. See WH. ii. p. 104, where the distribution 
of evidence in this and similar instances of conflation is tabulated. Comp. 
ix. 10, xi. 54, xii. 18. See Introduction, p. Ixxiii. 


The various conjectures as to why the disciples were so joyous 
and thankful may all be right: but they remain conjectures. Be- 
cause of the promised gift of the Spirit (Euthym.) ; because of the 
Lord’s teaching and blessing (Mey. Weiss); because of His glorious 
return to the Father, which was a pledge of the victory of His cause 
(Godet) ; because His Ascension confirmed all their beliefs and 
hopes (Maldon.) ; because His presence with God was a guarantee 
for the fulfilment of His promises and an earnest of their own 
success (Hahn). 


*Auiy: probably not genuine, but a liturgical addition. It is absent from 
& C* DLO, several cursives, abd e ff,1 Syr-Sin. etc. 


WESTERN NON-INTERPOLATIONS, 


Unless Mt. xxvii. 49 and Lk, xii. 11 (# 7!) are to be regarded as examples, 
all the instances of Western non-interpolations are found in the last three 
chapters of S. Luke. In ch. xxiv. they are surprisingly frequent. The opposite 
phenomenon of interpolation is among the most marked characteristics of the 
Western texts. And although omissions also are not uncommon, yet Western 
omissions for the most part explain themselves as attempts to make the sense 
more forcible. 

But there are cases in which the absence of words or passages from Western 
authorities, and their presence in other texts, cannot be explained in this way. 
In these cases the more satisfactory explanation seems to be that it is the other 
texts which have been enlarged, while the Western documents, by escaping 
interpolation, have preserved the original reading in its simplicity. 

It is evident that these insertions in the original text (if insertions they be) 
must have been made very early: otherwise they could not have become 
diffused in every text excepting the Western. Alexandrian corruptions which 
have spread widely are a common phenomenon. But these insertions have a 
different aspect ; and neither internal nor external evidence favours such a theory 
of their origin. We must look elsewhere for an explanation. That the original 
readings should be preserved nowhere else but in a text which is wholly Western 
is so unusual a result that there is nothing extravagant in assuming an unusual 
cause for it. 

It must sometimes have happened in ancient times that authors, having pub- 
lished their MS. and caused it to be multiplied, afterwards issued revised copies 
with corrections and insertions. In the cases before us ‘‘ the purely documentary 
phenomena are compatible with the supposition that the Western and the Non- 
Western texts started respectively from a first and a second edition of the 
Gospels, both conceivably apostoléc (WH. ii. p. 177).” This conjectural source 
of variations, viz. changes made in later copies by the authors themselves, is 


567 


accepted by Scrivener as a general possibility (Scriv-Miller, i. p. 18), and is sug- 
gested as specially applicable to the latter part of S. Luke’s Gospel (ii. pp. 298, 
299n.). Blass regards this as highly probable with regard to the Acts. Lk. made 
a rough copy first on cheap material, and then a better copy to give to Theophilus, 
who was a person of distinction. In this second copy he made alterations. But 
both remained in existence and became the parent of other copies, the Western 
text being derived from the rough draft, and the more widely diffused text 
from the presentation copy.! Salmon thinks that something of the same kind 
“took place with St. Luke’s Gospel; and that in the case of the Gospel, 
as well as in that of the Acts, it was the first draft which went into circulation 
in the West.” He supposes that the second edition of the Gospel was about 
contemporary with the Acts, and that between the two writings Luke had con- 
versed with a witness able to give him additional information about the Lord’s 
sayings and the Ascension. Having just written the full account of the latter in 
the Acts, he added a word or two to Lk. xxiv. 51, 52. ‘‘ And since in Luke’s 
account of the dying words of Stephen (Acts vil. 59, 60) we find an echo of two 
of the utterances which the common texts of St. Luke’s Gospel places in the 
mouth of the dying Saviour, I find it hard to regard the coincidence as fortuitous, 
and but the lucky hit of an unknown interpolator” (4f/. to Hist. Int. to N.T. 
7th ed. p. 603). See also Rendel Harris, Hour Lectures on the Western Text, 
Camb. 1894, P; 62. A theory such as this certainly is very welcome as an 
explanation of Lk. xxii. 43, 44 and xxiii. 34a, although neither of them can 
be called Western non-interpolations. But in other cases the apparent insertions 
are perhaps scarcely worthy of so high an origin: ¢.g. the non-Western insertions 
in xxiv. 3, 6, 9 seem to be about on a level with Western insertions. See WH. 
U. Pp. 175-177. : 

The question cannot be regarded as settled ; but, assuming that there are 
such textual phenomena as Western non-interpolations, the more manifest ex- 
amples are Lk, xxii. 19b, 20, xxiv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52. To which may 
be added as a possible instance in a secondary degree xxii. 62. 


XXIV.} THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 


(1) xxii. rob, 20. 7d dxép bucy didbuevor . « » exxuvdpuevor. 
Evidence for the passage :-— 
NABCEFGHKLM (PR defective here) SUXVI'AATI and 
all cursives. 
Almost all Versions. 
Marcion or Tertull. Cyr-Alex. 
Evidence against the passage :-— 
D omits. 
a d ff,il omit. 
be Syr-Cur. omit and put vz, 17, 18 in the place of the omitted 
e, so that the verses run—16, 19a [b], 17, 18, 21, 22, etc. Syr- 
in. has an elaborate transposition :—16, 19a b, 20a, 17, 20b, 18, 21, 
22, etc. It also exhibits considerable changes in the wording. 
But in order to appreciate these various attempts to get rid of the difficulty 
involved in the ordinary text, owing to the mention of two cups, it is necessary 
to see them in full in a tabular form. , 


Cod, Veron. (b). 


Wet accepto pane gratias egit et 
fregit et dedit illis dicens hoc est corpus 
meum 1" et accepto calice gratias egit 
et dixit accipite hoc et dividite inter 
vos 18dico enim vobis. .. . . veniat. 
31 veruntamen ecce, etc. 


Cod. Palat. (e). 


1 et arecet panem et gratias egit ef 
fregit et dedit eis dicens hoc est corpus 
meum ” et accepit calicem et gratias 
egit et dixit accipite vivite inter vos 
18 dico enim vobis ..... . veniat. 
41 veruntamen ecce, etc. 





3 Apostolorum Acta, Fr. Blass, Geettingen, 1895, § 13, p. 32. 


568 


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 


[XXIV. 


It is obvious that these two Latin texts represent one and the same Greek 


original. 


There is much more difference between the two Syriac Versions, of 


which Syr-Cur. agrees more with the Latin texts than with its fellow. 


Syr-Cur. 


19 And Ile took bread and when He 
had given thanks, He brake it, and 
gave to them, saying, This is My body, 
which (is given) for you: this do in 
remembrance of Me. 1 And He re- 
ceived a cup, and when He had given 
thanks, He said, Take this and divide 
it among yourselves: for I say to 

ou, I will ...+.eece-se « come 

But behold, etc, 


(2) xxiv. 3. 
Evidence for the words :— 
Almost all Greek MSS. 
Most Versions. 


SyveSi#, 

1 And He took bread and gave 
thanks over it, and brake, and gave 
unto them, saying, This is My body 
which I give for you: ¢hus do in re- 
membrance of Me. ™ And after they 
had supped, }7 He took the cup, and 
gave thanks over it, and said, Take 
this, share it among yourselves. ” This 
is My blood, the new testament. 1 For 
I say unto you, that henceforth I will 
not drink of this fruit until the king- 
dom of God shall comes ™ But never- 
theless behold, ete. 


After cGyua the words roi xuplou Ixcet 


Evidence against the words :— 
D omits the whole, 42 omits xuplov. 


a bdeff,lr omit the whole. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Sah. omit xuplov. 
Nowhere else in the true text of the Gospels does 6 xuplos "Incois occur: 
but it may be right in the appendix to Mk. (xvi. 19). 
In the remaining instances only the evidence agaimst the passage need be 
stated. 


(3) xxiv. 6. ob ori Hoe, Adda 7ryépOn. 
D omits the whole. C* omits dddd. 
abdeff,lr* omit the whole. c substitutes resurrexit a mortuis, 
which perhaps is an independent insertion. Syr-Pesh. gp omit dAAd. 
Aeth. transposes, omitting d\\d: iyyép0n, ovx éorw Gde, exactly as Mk. 
xvi. 6, which is the probable source of the insertion: comp. Mt. xxviii. 6. 
Marcion apud Epiph. seems to have omitted all but 7yép@y. 


(4) xxiv. 9. dd rod pynpelou. 
D omits. 
abcdeff,|Ir omit. 


(5) xxiv. 12. ‘O 52 Ilérpes . . . ‘yeyords. 
D omits. 


abdelromit. Syr-Harcl.* omits at the beginning of one lection, 
but perhaps accidentally. 
(6) xxiv. 36. kal Aéyet avrois, Elpjyn byuiv. 
D omits. 
abdeff,lr omit. 
G P 88 127 130 after duty add from fn vi. 20 ey elu, wh poBetobe. 
cf Vulg. Syrr. (Pesch. Harcl. Hier.) Arm. and some MSS. of Boh. 
after vobis add ego sum nolite timere. Aeth. adds nolite timere, ego sum. 
i ig from Jn. xx. 19. Tisch. and Weiss omit. WH. place in double 
kets. 


(7) xxiv. 40. xat retro clray . . - kat rods wédas. 
D omits, 


XXIV.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 569 


abde ff,1r Syr-Cur. omit. Syr-Sin. is here defective, but apparently 
contained the verse, 
Probably an adaptation of Jn. xx. 20. Tisch. and Weiss omit. WH. place 
in double brackets. 


(8) xxiv. St kal dvepépero els Tov otpards. 
* D omit. 
abdeff,1* omit. Syr-Sin. ccadenses, omitting diéorn and els rip 
pigs ot ‘* He was lifted up from them.” Syr-Pesh. is defective. 
. omits once and inserts once, 
Tisch. Pn Weiss omit. WH. place in double brackets. 


(9) za 52. mpocxuvyjcavres atréry. 
D omits the whole. 
abde ff,1 Syr-Sin. omit the whole. 
Aug. omits the whole. 
c Vulg. omit ex. 

Tisch. and Weiss omit: WH. place in double brackets. 

It will be observed that ehindichont these instances the adverse witnesses are 
very much the same. The combination D, adel! prevails throughout ; and in 
almost all cases these are supported by b and ff,, and very often by r also. In 
xxii. 62, which was mentioned as a secondary instance of possible non-interpola- 
tion, D ’ deserts its usual allies. The verse is found in all Greek MSS. and in 
all Versions, excepting abe ff,il*r. 


INTERPOLATIONS IN THE SINAITIC SYRIAC, 


Some of these have been pointed out in the notes; 4g. pp. 53, 449, 468, 
507, 540, 543, 556. But there are others which are of interest ; and in some 
cases they are peculiar to this MS. 

i, 3. to write of them one by one carefully unto thee. 

6. blameless in a// thetr manner of life. 
12. was troubled and shook. 
13. God has heard the vozce of thy praye 

v. 7. When they came, ¢hey brought up ‘ish, and filled both the ships, and 

they were nearly sinking from the weight of them. 

vi. 40. The disciple is not perfect as his master zm teaching. 

vill. 13. receive it Zastzly with joy (Cur.). 
29. brake his bonds and cut them, and was led. 
xi. 36.. and 2” the sight of men they told nothing. 
40. they were not able fo deliver him. 
48. he that is small and zs a child to you. 
xii, 56, this time avd z¢s signs ye do not search to prove (Cur.). 
xiv. I. they watched what He would do (Cur 
13. call the poe: and the blind, and ha, lame, and the maimed (order), 
and the despised, and many others, 
22. yet there is room at the feast (Cur.). 
xv. 13. living wastefully with harlots (Cur.). 
xvi. 23. And dezng cast into Sheol, he lifted up (Harcl.). 
xviii. 36. when he heard ¢he voice of the multitude (Cur.). 
xx. 17. When they heard these things (+ part of ver. 19). 
24. And they showed zt to Him, saying, Czsar’s. 
29. There were seven brethren amongst us (D, Aeth.). 
34. The children of this world are begotten and beget and marry (D, ete.). 
xxii, 58. Ze¢ alone, man, I know Him not. 


INDEX TO. THE: NOTES. 


——— 

INDEX I. GENERAL 
Abijah, the course of, 8 Aposiopesis, 340, 450. 
Abila, 84. Apostles, lists of the, 172 
Abilene, 84. 


Abraham’s bosom, 393. 
Acts, parallels between the Gospel 
and the, 17, 38, 375, 521. 
Adam’s skull, legend respecting, 531. 
Adultery, 389. 
woman taken in, 455, 489. 
Aeolic forms, 170, 314, 499. 


Alphzeus, 173. 

Amphibolous constructions, 10, 63, 
107, 176, 215, 265, 278, 317, 346, 
396, 408, 428, 447, 460. 

Analytical or periphrastic tenses, II, 
17, 18, 120, 131, 142, 146, I5I, 
171, 441, 454, 482, 525, 526, 557. 

Andrew, 173. 

Angels, II, 20, 114, 278, 393, 469, 
509, — 548. 

Anna, 7 


Annas, wae: 515. 
Annunciation of the birth of the 
Baptist, 7, 13. 

of the birth of Jesus, 20, 23. 

of the Passion, 245, 256, 427. 
Antipas (see Herod). 
Aorist, the supposed gnomic, 33, 208. 
Aorist and imperfect, 60, 245, 286, 


556. 
Aorist and perfect, 31. 
Aorist, mixed forms of, 36, 59, 295. 
Apocalypse of Jesus, 487. 
Apocryphal gospels, their contrast 
with the canonical, 26, 35, 46, 53, 
61, 76, 168, 229, 539, 546, 548. 


Archelaus, 74, 430, 438. 
Aramaic, different 
same, 102, 154, 186, 223. 
imathea, 541. 
Article, force of the, 56, 211, 404, 441. 
absence of the, 15, 57, 281, 407, 


of the 


408, 558. 
Attic forms, 137, 509, 547- 
Attraction of the relative common in 
Lk., 5, 17, 60, 97, 145, 256, 332, 
374, 447. 
Augment, 40, 170, 392, 557+ 
Augustus, the Emperor, 48, §1, 195- 
Ave Mariza, the, 21. 


Baptism of John, 42, 85, 88, 457. 
Baptism of Jesus by John, 98, 100. 
Baptist, the characteristics of the, 14, 
15, 38, 42, 44, 79, 80, 86, Io, 
2 date of the appearance of, 
I. 
his message to Christ, 203. 
Barabbas, 337, 525- 
Bartholomew, 173. 
Bartimzus, 429. 
Basilidian Gnostics, 528. 
Baskets, different kinds of, 24§. 
Beatitudes 3, 179, 203, 306, 35% 
Beelzebub, 301. 
Benedictus, the, 38, 39. 


Bethany, 289, 445, 564. 


572 INDEX TO 


Bethlehem, 52. 
Bethsaida, Lk. perhaps ignorant of a 
second, 243. 
Bezae ; see Codex. 
Birth of Christ, date of, 55. 
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, 
I 


321. 

Blind, healing the, 203, 431. 
Bloody sweat, 510. 
Bread, break, 557. 

daily, 295. 
Brethren of the Lord, 174, 223, 549. 
Bull Unam Sanctam, 507. 
Bush, the, 470. 


Cesar, 466. 

Czesarea Philippi, 83, 246. 

Caiaphas, 84, 515. 

Calvary, 530. 

Capernaum, 131, 195. 

Capital punishment, 519, 527. 

Census, 47, 52. 

Centurions, 194, 195, 539. 

Chiasmus, 277, 324, 520. 

Childlessness, a calamity to Orientals, 
10, 19, 529 

Children, Christ's attitude towards, 
257, 421. 

Chorazin, 276. 

Christ, meaning of the title of the, 
67, 121; comp. 448, 456. 

Christology of the Synoptists, 282. 

Chronology in Lk., 5, 19, 75, 81, 102, 
250, 2601. 

Circumcision, 36, 61, 62. 

Cleansing of the temple probably re- 
peated, 453. 

Cleopas, 551, 553: 

Climax, 184, 203, 204, 245. 

Cocks not excluded from Jerusalem, 


51 
Codex Bezae, 93, 119, 168, 188, 256, 
294, ee 327, 340, 427, 428, 438, 
443, 486, 534, 542, 546, 555, 55% 
Coincidences between Lk. and S. 
Paul, 274, 411, 514, 558 
Coins, 320, 370, 465, 475. 
Colt, 447. 
Confession of Peter, 245. 
Conflation of texts, 243, 300, 316, 
324, 524, 563, 566. 
Court of the Women, 67, 475. 
Cross, 248, 528. 
Crucifixion, 531. 
day of the, 491, 492, 527, 541, 
542, 543. 
Cups at the Passover, 495. 


THE NOTES 


Darkness at the Crucifixion, §39- 
David, 52, 167, 472. 
city of, 52. 
Davidie descent of Mary uncertain, 
21, 23, 53 
Day of Questions, 455. 
Dead, raising the, 197, 201, 237. 
Demoniacs, 134, 136, 229, 253, 342. 
Demonology, Lk. has no peculiar, 
242, 277. 
Demons, 133, 139, 208, 228, 278, 301. 
Denials, Peter’s, differences respect- 
ing, 503, 514. 
Destruction oe Jerusalem, 250, 451, 
481 
Development of Christ’s human 
nature and character, 78, 79, 114. 
Devil, personal existence of the, 108, 
220, 278, 343. 
influence over Judas, 490; see 


Satan. 
Disciples other than the Twelve, 176, 
179, 198, 254, 267. 
pairs of, 272. 
Discourses of Christ, 176, 316. 
Discrepancies between the Gospels, 
226, 239. 
Dives, 301. 
Divinity of Jesus Christ, 25, 78, 121, 
364, 370, 519 
Divorce, 390. 
Bo used by Lk., 7, 44, 46, 


Dogs, 392. 

Door, the narrow, 346. 

Doric usage, 128. 

Dove in symbolism, 99. 

Doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, 208. 

Draughts of fishes, two such miracles 
to be distinguished, 147. 


Ebionism not found in Lk., 180, 300, 
329, 390, 413, 425, 426. 
Elijah and the Baptist, 15, 241. 
and Moses, 251. 
ee mother of the Baptist, 9, 


aoa of, 27, 29. 
Emmaus, 551. 
Enoch, Book of, 156, 398, 461. 
Essenes, 44. 
Eternal life, 284, 386, 427. 
Eucharist, Institution of the, 494, 


557- 
Evening, 138, 556. 
Excommunication, 181. 


Exorcists, Jewish, 259, 302 


I, GENERAL 


Faith, 154, 213, 226, 236, 400, 431. 
Fasting, 72, 108, 161, 417. 

Feasts, 74, 448, 490, 493. 

Fig tree, the barren, 339. 

Fire, baptizing with, 95- 

Five thousand, the feeding of, 242. 
Forty, the number, in Scripture, 108. 
Fox, 265, 349- 

Funerals, 198, 199, 237e 


Gabriel in Scripture and in Jewish 
legend, 16, 

Galileans, 263, 337. 

Galilee, 20, 117, 521. 

Gehenna, 277, 319. 

Genealogy of Christ, 101. 

given as that of Joseph, 103. 

Genitive absolute in Latin of Codex 
Bezae, 93, 256, 438. 

Genitive, characterizing, 124, 383. 

Gennesaret, 142. 

Gentiles, salvatiori open to the, 69, 
89, 105, 129, 270, 363, 461. 

Gerasenes, 227. 

Grace before meat, 244, 557. 

Graves, 312. 


Hades, 277, 319, 393, 397- 

Hands, laying on of, 138, 341. 

Hebraisms, 9, 10, 17, 29, 37, 68, 162, 
263, 273, 320, 360, 438, 460, 465, 
494, 548. 

Hermon the probable scene of the 
Transfiguration, 250. 

Herod the Great, 7, 430, 439. 

his supposed destruction of Jewish 
genealogies, 102. 

Herod Antipas, 83, 97, 241, 337, 
348, 522. 

Herod Philip, 83. 

Herodians, 464. 

Herodias, 97. 

High priest, 8, 84, 515. 

Hillel, 182, 189, 304, 318. 

Hinnom, 319. 

Holy Spirit, 14, 24, 66, 95, 99, 107, 
116, 121, 300, 321, 562. 

Horn of salvation, 40. 

Houses in the East, 153, 318. 


Iambic verse, accidental, 155 
Ignatius, false tradition respecting, 
258. 
Imperative present, 186, 196, 
» 511. 
Imperfect and aorist, 60, 245, 286, 


556. 


199, 


573 


Impersonal plurals, 189, 325, 385. 

Inspiration, not a substitute for re 
search, 5. 

Interpolations, 22, 120, 165, 168, 
264, 294, 312, 327, 331, 410, 450, 
521, 522, 525, 531, 533, 549 542, 
551, 561. 


Iturea, 83. 


Jairus, 234. 


James the brother of John, 145, 173, 


237. 

James of Alphzeus, 173. 

Jericho, 429, 438. 

Jerome, Greek text used by, 256, 
485, 515. 

occasional carelessness of, 347, 
451, 483, 552. 

Jerusalem, two forms of the name, 

6 


destruction of, before S. Luke 
wrote, 451. 
Jesus does not publicly proclaim Him- 
self as the Messiah, 247. 
abstains from invading the office 
of constituted authorities, 150, 
322, 404. : 
often answers questions indi- 
rectly, 332, 443. 
seems to use His supernatural 
power of knowledge with reser- 
vation, 434, 446. 
by Divine decree must suffer, 
247, 250, 350, 408, 506, 555. 
Jews and Samaritans, 263, 289. 
Joana, 216, 549. 
John the Apostle, 145, 237, 250, 259, 
264, 279, 292, 512, 516. 
John the Baptist ; see Baptist. 
Jonah, 306. 
Jordan, 85. 
Joseph the husband of Mary, 26, 52, 
63, 67, 75, 78. 
Joseph of Arimathea, 540. 
Judzea, meaning of the name, 8, 141, 
200, 521. 
Judas of James, 174. 
Judas Iscariot, 172, 175, 425, 490, 
499, SII. 
his treachery not a fiction, 491. 
Judas of Galilee, 248, 337, 466. 
Judge, the unrighteous, similarities 
between this and other parables, 


413. 

Judgment, day of, 276. 

Juttah possibly the birthplace of the 
Baptist, 28. 


574 


ee of God, 140, 141, 249, 275, 


Kiss a peace, 512. 
Kneeling at prayer, 508 ; comp. 416. 


Last Supper, day of the, 491. 
Latinisms, 336, 361, 441. 
Lawyers, 152, 206. 
» 390. 
Leaven, 318. 
Lepers, healing of, 149, 404. 
Leprosy, 148, 150. 
Levi, 158, 268. 
Levirate law, 468. 
Life, 235, 249, 323. 
Lilies of the field, 327. 
Limitation of Christ’s human know- 
ledge, 79, 197, 236, 404, 446, 472. 
Lord, the word, how used of Christ 
and of Jehovah, 152, 199, 309, 400. 
Lord’s Prayer, 293. 
Lord’s Supper, 495, 557 
Lot’s wife, 409. 
Love, 184. 
Luke, not an eye-witness, 2, 3. 
not one of the Seventy, 270. 
not one of the two at Emmaus, 
I. 
has aie animus against the 
Twelve, 172, 248, 255, 494, 
51, 514. 
order mainly chronological, 
5, 19, 75, 81, 102, 250, 261. 
teristics of his style, 22, 
45, 116, 119, 142, ae 233; 
243, 250, 254, 256, 262, 293, 
323, 416, 428, 429, 432, 565. 
Lysanias, 84. 


Maccabees, Fourth Book of, 471. 

Magdalen, 215 ; see Mary. 

Magnificat, the, 30, 39. 

Malchus, 513. 

Mammon, 385. 

Marcion’s alterations in the text of 
Lk., 283, 347, 389, 423. 

Marcion’s excisions, 6, 119, 347, 536 
(p. Ixviii). 

insertions, 264, 521. 

Mark, Gospel of, whether used by 
Lk., 2, 246, 250, 494. 

Marniage, 21, 460. 

Martha of Bethany, 233, 290. 

Mary of Bethany, 209, 290. 

Mary of Magdala, 209, 216, 540, 549. 

Mary the Blessed Virgin, 21, 25, 29, 
32, 34) 53, 60, 65, 70, 77. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Mary, her supposed vow of perpetual 
virginity, 24, 53, 224. 

Matthew, 158, 173. 

Gospel of, whether used by Lk., 
26, 27, 64, 74, 246, 250, 462, 
479, 494. | 

Measures of quantity, 383. 

Medical language in Lk., 19, 28, 
135, 137, 152, 161, 167, 199, 235, 
254, 354, 392, 425, 452, 510, 550. 

Messiah, 101, 448. 

Millenarians, 427. 

Ministry in Galilee, 115. 

in Judea, 352. 

Ministry, duration of Christ’s, 122. 

Miracles, their harmony with a great 
crisis, 7. 

their position in the Ministry, 
140, 217. 
condensed reports of numerous, 
137, I51, 176, 203. 
Mission of the Twelve, 238. 
of the Seventy, 269. 
Moses, 65, 251. 
Mount of Precipitation, 129. 
of Transfiguration, 250. 
Mustard-seed, 344. 


Nain, 198. 

Nazareth, 21. 

Nazirite, 10, 14, 267. 

Nominative for vocative, 238, 282. 

Non-interpolations, Western, 322, 
66, 


500, 
Nunc dimittis, the, 67. 


Olives, Mount of, 445. 

Optative mood, 22, 94, 170, 421. 

Oral tradition, 3, 61, 507. 

Orthography, questions of, 21, 28, 
51, 57, 63, 128, 131, 142, 359, 
389, 434, 486, 493. 


Parables, characteristics of Christ’s, 
217, 285, 367, 371, 390, 458. 

coincidences between, 413, 437- 
pairs of, 163, 344. 

Paradise, 536. 

Paronomasia, 479. 

Passion, 489. 

Passover, 490. 

Paul ; see Coincidences, 

Periphrastic tenses ; see Analytical. 


‘Peter, 140, 142, 144, 172, 236, 237, 


252, 331, 492, 504, 514. 
his mother-in-law, 136. 


I, GENERAL 


Pharisees, 152, 161, 210, 309, 348, 
367, 377, 387; 417, 464, 467. 

Philip the Apostle, 136, 173. 

Philip the tetrarch, 82. 

Philip son of Mariamne, 96. 

Phlegon, 537. 

Pilate, 82, 337, 339, 520, 524. 

Popular enthusiasm for i 
306, 430, 447, 454, 489. 

Pounds, ble of, not a version of 
that of the Talents, 437. 

Prayer, Lk.’s Gospel the Gospel of, 
99, I5I, I7I, 246, 251, 294, 298, 
4II, 508. 

the Lord’s, 293. 

Precepts of Christ that cannot be kept 
literally, 185, 329. 

Preface of the Gospel, its resemblance 
to other prefaces, 6. . 

se construction, 122, 141, 201, 
488. 

Prepositions of rest with verbs of 
motion and zce versé, 15, I5I, 
169, 201, 299, 488. 

Presentation in the temple, 64. 

Priests, 9, 18. 

residences of the, 19, 28, 287. 

Procurators of Judza, 49, 51, 82. 

Prophecies of Christ, 277, 451, 477+ 

Prophets and prophesying, 40, 66, 72, 
428, 457- . 

Prophets, the, as a division of 
Scripture, 555, 562. 

Psalm x., Christ’s question about, 
472, 473. 

Publicans or tax-collectors, 91, 159, 
367, 433- 

Purification, 63, 64, 150. 

Purpose of the 1, 5. 


Quirinius, census of, 49. 


Rabbinical sayings, 13, 89, 111, 168, 
170, 171, 193, 306, 385, 4945 see 
Hillel, Mskna, and Talmud, in 
Index II. 

Rationalist explanations of miracles, 
61, 149, 245. 
eadings, important differences of, 
22, 59, 63, 100, 110, 120, 141, 165, 
187, 193, 227, 243, 253, 264, 272, 
292, 294, 315, 355, 385, 387, 420, 
486, 496, 509, 524, 525, 531, 533, 
537, 544, 548, 550, 551, 552, 560, 
561, 565, 566. 

Rebel’s beating, 129. 

Remission of sins, 42, 86, 154, 563. 


Christ, 139, | 
| Sabbath, attitude of Jesus towards the 








575 


Rents, Jewish methods of paying, 
383, 459. 

Resurrection, 467, 469, 546. 

Riches, dangers of, 182, 325, 395, 425 

Righteousness, meaning of, 9. 

Robbers, the two, 530, 533. 

Room, upper, 493. 

Ruler, the young, 421. 


168, 170, 343. 

miracles wrought on the, 353. 
Sadducees, 467, 519. 
Salome, 540, 549. 
Salt, savourless, 366, 
Salvation, 41, 68. 
Samaritans, 263, 289, 337, 404, 405. 
Sanhedrin, 248, 269, 455, 514, 517- 
Sarepta, 128. 
Satan, 108, III, 278, 302, 341, 490, 

5°03 

never said to be visible, 109, 114. 
Scorpions, 279, 300. 
Scourging, 321, 525, 527. 
Scribes, 160, 368. 
Sepulchre ; see Graves, Tombs, 
Sermon on the Mount, 176. 
Seventy, the, 269, 277. 
Shealtiel, 104. 
Sheba, the queen of, 307. 
Shechinah, 24, 55, 252. 
Sheol, idea of in O.T., 397. 
Shepherd, the Good, 328, 368. 
Shepherds, 54. 
Shewbread, 167 
Sicarii, 174, 455. 
Silence, why enjoined on the healed, 


9. 
Simon, Lk.’s use of the name, 144 


172. 

Simon the Pharisee, 209. 

Simon Zelotes, 174. 

Simon of Cyrene, 527. 

Sinaitic Syriac ; see Syriac. 

eres 26, 68, 332, 376, 401, 43% 
459. 

Socal 146, 
oldiers, 92, 523, 531, 

Son of David, oo as: 

Son of God, 25. 

Son of Man, 156. 

Son of the Law, 75. 

Soul and life, 249, 324. 

Sparrows, 319. 

Spirit and soul, 31, 71; see Holy 
Spirit. 


576 


Steward, different kinds of, 332, 381. 

Style of Lk. ; see Luke. 

Subjunctive mood, 169, 244. 

Superscription or title of the Gospel, 
I. 

on the Cross, 533. 

Supper, the Last, 494. 

Surgery, miracle of, 513. 

Susanna, 216. 

Swine, difficulties respecting the de- 
mons and the, 229. 

Sycamore, 400, 433. 

Synagogues, business done in, 117, 
195, 321. 

offices of, 123, 342. 
service of, 119, 123, 341. 
numbers of, 117, 118. 

Symeon, 65. 

Synoptic Gospels, 115, 125, 141, 147, 
I5I, 242, 248, 254, 260, 424, 429, 
450, 491, 532, 536, 549. 

Syriac, Sinaitic, readings of the, 53, 
63, 253, 258, 268, 272, 283, 288, 
322, 352, 356, 373 402, 403, 408, 
444, 447, 448, 449, 452, 459, 465, 
466, 468, 478, 479, 496, 517, 518, 
526, 532, 533, 534, 543, 544, 545, 
547, 548, 549, 550, 556, 559, 501, 
562, 566, 568, 569. 


Tabor, 251. 
Talmud ; see Index II. 
Tell Hum, 117, 131, 195, 276. 
Temple, the, 11, 476. 

pinnacle of, 113. 

captains of, 490. 
Temptation of Christ real, 106, 114. 
Tenses, sequence of, 169, 421. 
Tetrarch, 82. 
Theophilus, a real person, 5. 
Tiberius Czesar, the fifteenth year of, 

8 


is 
Tiberius Gracchus, 266. 
Title ; see Superscription. 
Tolerance, lessons of, 258, 261. 
Tombs, 198, 229, 313, 547- 
Trachonitis, 83. 
Transfiguration, 250, 253. 
Treasury in the temple, 475. 
Trials of Christ, the ecclesiastical, 

514, 517. 

the civil, 519, 522. 

Tribute to Cesar, 463, 520. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 444, 
452 


Twelve, the, 172, 215, 239, 428. 


Uncleanness, 63, 150, 2679 310» 
Unicorn, 40. 
Usury not forbidden by Christ, 188, 


Veil of the Temple, 537. 

Veronica, 233, 529. 

Version, Authorised, criticisms on, 
73) 102, I10, 122, 212, 248, 320, 
325, 331, 333, 347, 354s 357s 358, 
368, 440, 464, 521, 525, 549, 554. 

Revised, criticisms on, 25, 85, 
272, 2745 325, 331, 347, 354) 
_ 368, 377; 407, 440, 464. 

Versions, English, prior to AV., 3, 
15, 34, 146, 159, 208, 339, 340, 
358, 366, 386, 401, 418, 439, 449, 
483, 484, 549. : 

Latin, remarkable features ‘in, 3, 
15, 55, 175, 217, 313, 315s 
318, 327, 371, 375, 396, 413, 
442, 448, 452, 480, 481, 484, 
489, 501, 504, 521, 523, 530, 
540, 548, 555, 556, 557, 559 

Vespasian, 87, 251, 522. 

Virgin birth, 26, 67. 

Voice from heaven, 100, 253. 

Vultures, 410. 


Washing, 309. 

Wedding, 331, 357- 

Western non-interpolations, 322, 566. 
Widow, 72, 198, 412. 

Wine, new and old, 164, 165. 

Woes, 181, 276, 311, 398, 500. 
Words of our Lord, the first recorded, 


77- 
from the Cross, 531, 535, 53> 
the impossibility of inventing 
such, 539. 


Zacchzeus, the head tax-gatherer, 432. 

Zacharias, father of the Baptist, 8, 9 
36, 85. 

his prayer, 13. 

Zacharias, the blood of, 314. 

Zealots, 174, 269. 

Zerubbabel, 103. 


Zeugma, 37. 


I. WRITERS AND WRITINGS 


INDEX II. 


577 


WRITERS AND WRITINGS. 


Quotations from Greek and Latin authors in illustration of Grammar and 


Diction ate not included in this Index.? 


Abbott, E. A., 138, 513, 545+ 

Abbott, T. K., 489, 498. 

Acta Pauli et Thecle, 23. 

Acts of Pilate, 233, 489, 527, 533, 
534, 537; 539- 

Africanus, 102, 103, 537- 

Alexander, Bishop, 91, 329, 551. 

Alford, 19, 21, 132, 207, 210, 249, 
304, 351, 514. 

Ambrose, 24, IOI, 110, 209, 264, 273, 
323, 340, 368, 391, 4II, 422, 483, 
531, 533,_535- 

American Church Review, 86. 

American Revisers, 208. 

Anastasius Bibliothecarius, 258. 

Andrewes, Bishop, 56. 

Andrews, S. J., 55, 64, 131, 350 

Annius of Viterbo, 103. 

Antipho, 92. 

Apostolic Constitutions, 67, 155, 186, 
432, 503- 

Aquila, 26, 57, 339- 

Aretzeus, 254. 

Arethas, 545. 

Aristotle, 185, 323, 347, 442 

Arrian, 4! 

Assumption of Moses, 262, 310. 

Augustine, 100, 109, 125, 186, 210, 
211, 214, 226, 273, 280, 289, 201, 
294, 298, 354, 375s 385: 437) 443» 
489, 533, 535» 538. 


Bacon, 216. 

Barnabas, Ep. of, 145, 564. 

Baur, 232, 264. 

Bede, 9, 12, 37, 241, 246, 249, 255, 
257, 292, 407, 421, 423, 436, 438, 
457, 464, 480, 502, 503, 505, 512. 

er, 222. 

Bengel, 17, 29, 37, 78, 81, 90, 93, 
137, 143, 211, 214, 246, 271, 274, 
287, 322, 334,:362, 367, 396, 423, 
441, 471, 475, 503. 


Bentley, 396. 

Bernard, Saint, 417, 511. 

Beza, 102, 146, 202, 249. 

Birks, 260. 

Blakesley, 496. 

Blass, 125, 236, 415, 481, 519, 567. 

Bleek, 16, 71, oe 463. 

Blunt, J. H., 

Blunt, J. J., oe 287 

Boniface VIIT., 597. 

Briggs, C. A., 488, 498. 

Browne, E. Harold, 79. 

Burton, 194, 208, 229, 236, 257, 278, 
441, 449, 459, 482, 517, 526, 542 


Cajetan, 249, 350. 
vin, 249. 

Campbell, ors, gl. 

Caspari, 9, 178, 261, 445, 

Geasenes 48. cake 

Catullus, 199. 

Celsus, 425. 

Chadwick, 172, 230, 

Chandler, 208, 226, 229. 

Charles, R. H., 398, 461. 

Chase, F. H., 294, 295, 298 

Cheyne, 182. 

Chrysostom, 150, 197, 202, 205, 436, 
437, 506, 531, 533» 

Chwolson, 492, 519. 

Cicero, 442, 449, 464. 

Classical Review, 119, 51} 

Clement of Alexandria, 55, 122, 136, 
143, 157, 189, 266, 271, 424, 432. 

Clement of Rome, 33, 189, 399. 

Pseudo-Clement, 273, 386. 

Clementine Homilies, 161, 189, 281, 
423, 432. 

Clementine Liturgy, 279. 

cee Recognitions, 270, 432, 


peeved Bible, 37, 63 
Conder, 85, 129, 251, 276. 





1In the majority of cases the references given in this Index are to actual 
quotations. But, as one of its purposes is to Bel naar ie the list of com- 


mentaries given in the Introduction (pp. lxxx- 
writers and writings which have been found helpful, bare 


quotation are often included. 
37 


lxxxv), 2 by mention of other 
references without 


578 


Contem:, Review, 229, 295, 523. 
Cornelius & Lapide, 126, 278, 450. 
Coverdale, 167, 303. 
Cox, S., 223, 308, 328. 
Cremer, 231, 235. 
Cromwell, Thomas, 440. 
oe Se poe ‘ 
rian, 298, 418, 427, 43 

Cyril of Alexandria, 139, 340, 343, 

349; 368, 406, 410, 422, 505, 507. 
Cyril of Jerusalem, 251, 531, 533- 


Davies, T. L. O., 326, 357, 401. 

Davidson, S., 

De Wette, 16, 116, 144, 334, 415, 
‘473. 

Derenbourg, 309, 321, 3375 405. 

Didaché, 47, 186, 297, 495. 

Didon, 28, 35, 107, 130, 159, 415, 561. 

Dimma, Book of, 485. 

Diodorus Siculus, 338. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, 298. 

Dioscorides Pedacius, §. 

Dillinger, 188. 

Dorner, 156. 

Driver, 31, 88, 473. 


Ebrard, 50. 

Ecce Homo, 7, 80. 

Edersheim, 11, 54, 129, 133, 178, 
235, 269, 328, 345, 456. 

Ellicott, 73, 261, 351, 411. 

Enoch, Book of, 25, 156, 262, 385. 

pen ee eee 
piphanius, 274, 521, 536, 551. 

Erasmus, 311. 

Eusebius, 52, 180, 233, 271, 382, 410, 
481, 482, 538, 537, 560. 

Eustathius, 166. 

Euthymius Zigabenus, 53, 150, 184, 
207, 420, 421, 435, 501, 513, 533» 

Evans, T. S., 58, 144, 278. 

Ewald, H., 81, 87, 141, 189, 339, 


531. 
Ewald, P., 177. 
Exposttor, 102, 105, 155, 196, 222, 
246, 311, 372, 425, 498, 536. 
Exposttor’s Bible, 174, 224. 
Esra, Fourth Book of, 25, 262, 273, 


479. 
Esra, Fifth Book of, 386. 


Fairbairn, 105. 

Farrar, F. W., 133, 175, 178. 

Feine, P., 177. 

Field, F., 58, 188, 287, 289, 315, 
413. 445; 452, 530 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Fritzsche, 89, 133, 154, 192, $03, 
I. 

ao 564. 

Furneaux, 51, 212. 


Galen, 126, 137, 188. 

Gladstone, 228. 

Godet, 26, 50, 69, 76, 130, 137, 157, 
160, I71, 211, 267, 316, 359, 387, 
391, 447, 450, 451, 474, 488, 530, 

4 


543: 

Gore, 24, 27, 108, 307, 473. 

Gospel a to the Hebrews, 99, 169, 
425, 530 

Gospel of the Infancy, 76, 229, 534. 

Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, 53. : 

Gospel of Nicodemus, 65. 

a ef Pie. 527, 531, 536, 540, 

Gould, E. P., 218, 227, 472, 475. 

pee 110, 132, 171. 
tegory of Nazianzus, 304. 

Gregory of Nyssa, 295, 297, 406. 

Gregory the Great, 279, 293. 

Gregory, C. R., 203, 212, 253, 392 
393, 399, 412, 459, 557+ 

Groser, 192, 401. 

Grotius, 24, 28, 29, 145, 146, 164, 
177, 215, 280, 323, 339, 351, 37%, 
427, 440, 504. 

Guardian, 486, 492, 542. 

Gumpach, 50. 


arr 249, 264, 269, 405, 406, 415, 

Halcombe, 261. 

Hall, Bishop, 357- 

Hammond, C., 204. 

Harnack, 172. 

Harris, Rendel, 119, 264, 486, 521, 
523, 542, 567. 

Hase, 75, 80, 130, 202, 214, 282, 
448, 487. 

Hatch, 33, 93, 121, 155, 332 

Haupt, D. E., 488. 

Hausrath, 118, 152, 456. 

Hefele, 564. 

Hegesippus, 532. 

Heinic en, 96. 

Hengstenberg, 209. 

Heracleon, 158, 320. 

Hesychius, 93, 315- 

Hierocles, 469. 

Hilary, 544. 

Hilgenfeld, 266, 415. 

Hippocrates, 8, 510. 

Hippolytus, 386, 423, 560 


II. WRITERS AND WRITINGS 


Hitzig, 430. 

Hobart, 135, 137, 152, 161, 193, 197, 
199, 230, 235, 254, 275, 425, 452, 
484, 510. 

Hoffmann, R. A., 497. 

Hofmann, 19, 555+ 

Holtzmann, 19, 148, 209, 249, 422. 

Hooker, 79, 297. 

Hort, 58, 150, 311, 315, 341, 389. 

Huxley, 228. 


Ignatius, 560; comp. 504. 
Frenzeus, 197, 237, 386, 528. 
Isocrates, 186. 


annaris, 296, 298. 
erome, 112, 166, 169, 256, 276, 286, 


re 377, 421, 427, 531, 538, 544, 


560. 

Josephus, 84, 97, 102, 117, 131, 142, 
251, 269, 339, 345; 452s 406, 467, 
474, 477, 482, 490, 538. 

ian, the Emperor, 366. 
tlicher, 498. 
ulius Africanus, 102, 103, 537+ 
ustin Martyr, 49, 54, 99, 280, 423, 
446, 462, 497, 527. 
Juvenal, 245, 310. 


Keim, 78, 108, 122, 148, 197, 227, 
232, 247, 282, 313, 422, 430, 458, 
487, 502, 539. 

edy, H. A. A., 10, 134, 160, 199, 
211, 233, 273, 288, 332, 362, 542. 


Lactantius, 86, 
Lange, II, 79, 101, 262, 267, 345, 
394, 528, 551, 559, 561. 
€, 24, 275, 416. 
Latham, 1009, a 182, 295, 381, 441, 
466, 473, 548. 
Latimer, 440. 
Leo the Great, 251. 
Lewin, 74, 81, 83, 92, 337. 
Liber Antiphonianus, 22. 
Lightfoot, J., 103, 122, 181, 235, 251, 
269, 285, 525, 537, 543 
an ae Ge 81, 220, 230, 290, 
23, 326, 514. 
» 147, 171. 


579 


Maccabees, Fourth Book of, 471. 
Beceualt, 429. 

M‘Lellan, 51, 101, 296, 406. 
Magna Moralia, 222. 
Maimonides, 285, 466, 517. 
Maine, 372. 

Malalas, 233. 
mers 249, 350, 406, 422, 434, 

533, 556. 

Marcion, 119, 264, 347, 423. 
Margoliouth, 329. 

Marshall, 102, 231. 

Martial, 245, 361. 
Maundrell, 366. 

Maurice, F. D., 46, 165. 
Mayor, J. B., 53, 174, 223, 549 
Menander, 223. 

Meyer, 35, 130, 413, 510. 
Michelis, 158. 

Mill, W. H., rot. 

Milligan, 380, 390. 

Milman, 174. 

Mimnermus, 327. 

Mishna, 54, 194, 355, 468 
Mozley, J. B., 93. 
Muratorian Canon, 4. 


Neander, i 85, 237, 422, 449, 538. 
Nicander, 167. 

Nicephorus Callistus, 258. 
Nicholson, E, B. , 53% 

Nilus, 297. 

Nineteenth Century, 228. 

Nonnus, 174. 

Nosgen, 122, 249, 447, 457, 488. 


Olshausen, 58, 237, 345- 

Oosterzee, 262, 449. 

Origen, 54, 122, 125, 197, 237, 271, 
328, SII, 533, 536, 551, 560. 


Page, 293. 

Passio S. Perpetus, 92. 

Pauli Predicatio, 99. 

sper Radbertus, 305, 321, 351, 


II. 
Peaon! Bishop, 79. 
Pfleiderer, 352. 
Philo, 66, 119, 195, 337, 520. 
Philostorgius 233. 
Photius, 528. 
Plato, 66, 170, 191. 
Pliny the Baa. 48, 210, 268, 360, 


366. 
Plutarch, 44, 183, 210, 266, 528. 
Polybius, 539- 
Pressensé, 310, 468. 


580 


Protevangelium of James, 53. 
Psalms of Solomon, 32, 33, 41, 56, 
57, 283, 284, 295, 310, 394 


Quadratus, 201. 


Ramsay, 536. 

Renan, 124, 131, 156, 207, 224, 245, 
260, 277, 322, 454, 539, 553+ 

Resch, 168, 273, 442. 

Reuss, 246, 416. 

Riess, 48. 

Robinccnt E., 193, 198, 313, 447- 

Rénsch, 489. 

Ruskin, 188, 529. 

Ryle, 57, 262, 313, 562 


Sadler, 385, 429, 546. 
Salmon, 157, 161, 426, 474, 567. 
Sanday, 121, 157, 177, 229, 231, 282, 


307. 

Schaff, 78, 105, 495. 

Schanz, 184, 226, 511. 

Schleiermacher, 21, 60, 69, 73, 177, 
404, 452, 506. 

Schoettgen, 310, 330, 338, 348, 352, 
385, 411, 417, 419, 423, 474- 

Scholten, 242. 

Schreiber, 381. 

Schurer, 19, 49, 83, 152, 263, 468, 
518. 

Scrivener, 21, 58, 165, 486, 542, 546. 

Semeria, 492. 

Seneca, "308. 

Servius Sulpicius, 126. 

Simcox, W., 22, 32, 169, 282. 

Simplicius, 268. 

Smith of Jordan Hill, 229. 

Sozomen, 233. 

Spitta, 498. 

Stallbaum, 335, 5 

Stanley, 54, 129, is 198, 215, 218, 
344, 447, 449, 541. 

Steinhart, 271. 

Stier, 207, 351. 

Strabo, 44, 51, 141, 219, 286. 

Strauss, 70, 130, 197, 200, 202, 352, 
413, 430, 437, 473, 502, 539 

Stroud, 511. 

Suetonius, 82, 92, 333. 

Suicer, 173s 262, 268, 365 

Suidas, 48, 154. 

Surenhusius, 123. 

Swete, 25, 26. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Tacitus, 48, 82, 477, 478, 482. 

Talmud, 18, 159, 244, 249, 273, 311, 
337, 343, 349, 354, 356, 411, 416, 
419, 422, 423, 425, 468, 474, 516. 

Terence, 357, 384, 412. 

Tertullian, 35, 49, 202, 224, 252, 253, 
268, 271, 295, 297, 391, 399, 4 


512, 542. 

Testaments of the XII, Patriarchs, 21, 
43, 73, 262, 323, 503. 

Theodotion, 463. 

ee lact, 190, 205, 349 533, 551; 


556. 

Thirlwall, 473; 497- 

Thomson, W. M., 178, 226, 
366. 


Tischendorf, 130, 166. 

Tractatus de Rebaptismate, 99. 

Tregelles, 173. 

Trench, 143, 145, 165, 184, 207, 
210, 230, 262, 286, 326, 341, 349, 
371, 397- 

Tristram, 65, 75, 144, 150, 164, 210, 
215, 235, 251, 273, 286, 320, 326, 
345, 354, 360, 374, 411, 433, 44% 


Unam Sanctam, 507. 


2275 


Veitch, 274, 455. 
Velleius Paterculus, 82 


Warfield, 27. 

Weiffenbach, 487. 

Weiss, 31, 61, 124, 137, 20%, 221%, 
239, 245, 253, 341, 406, 430, 441. 

Wendt, 487. 

Westcott, 20, 105, 106, 144, 284, 320, 
350, 419, 442, 460. 
Hi.,’21, $9, 166, 220, 243, 427, 440, 
479 480, 497, 509, 531, 532, 551, 


Wetstein, 165, 324, 327, 345, 370, 466. 
Wieseler, 9, 50, 82, 166, 261, 262. 
Winer, 23, 26, 33, 36, e¢ passim. 
Wilson, C. w. +, 131, 232, 477» 
Wordsworth, a +» 132, 289, 385, 
422, 483, 55 
Woden ¥ ; 243) 306, 315, 371. 
Wright, 437, 557+ 


Xenophon, 146, 


Zeller, 423 
Zumpt, 49 


lI, GREEK WORDS 


INDEX III. GREEK WorRDs. 


‘Abin i, 


"ABpady, tov Kb\rror, xvi. 22 


&Bvocos, viii. 31. 
dyaGoraety, Vi. 33- 
dyadhgy, i. 47; X- 2%0 
dyadXAlacts, i, 14. 
dyarGy, vi. 27. 
aydan, xi. 42. 
dyamnrés, iii, 22, 
dyyedos, re II. 

Gyet, xxiv. 21. 
ayidfew, xi. 2 

dyios, i L 35. 

aypa, v. 9. 
dypavhets, ii, 8. 
dyovla, xxii, 44.°- 
aywvlferbat, xiii. 24. 
&deAgol Tod Kuplov, viii. 19. 
Aldns, x. 15, Xvi. 23. 
Gétxla, xiii. 27. 
Gdtxos, xvi. 11. 
dduvatety, i. 37- 
a&iuua, Ta, xxii. I. 
déeretv, vil. 30. 
aluaros, OpbuBot, xxii, 44. 
alveiv, ii. 13. 

alvos, xviii. 43. 

alpewv, vi. 29. 

alpew puviv, xvil. 13 
alriov, xxiii. 4. 
alxuddwros, iv. 18 
alway, 1. 55. 

aldvios, X. 25. 
dxd@apros, iv. 33 
axon, vii. I. 

dxodovGer pot, XVili. 22. 
dxovewv, Vi. 27. 
axptBas, i. 3. 
GddBacrpov, Vii. 37e 
aréxrwp, xxii. 60, 
Gdevpoy, xiii. 21. 
GAnOGs, ix. 27. 

GAN F, xii. 51. 
adXoyevijs, xvii. 13 
Gdvots, vill. 29. 
Gop, iii. 17. 
duaprwdés, Vii. 37» 
d&pueutros, i. 

dupbrepot, Ve Jo 

dy, i. 62. 

dvaBalverv, ii. 4. 


dvd-yatov, xxii, 12, 
dvdyeu, ii, 22, vill. 2% 
dvaywioxery, iv. 16, 
dvaryxdfewv, xiv. 23. 
dvdyxny Exe, xiv. 1% 
dvadecxvivat, x. Ie 
dvddekis, i. 80, 
dvafnrety, ii. 44 
dvdOnyua, Xxi. 5. 
dvatpeiy, xxii. 2, 
dvaxablfey, vii. 15 
dvaxplvew, xxiii. 14. 
dyd\nuyis, ix. 51. 
dvanvev, xii, 36, 
dyduynots, xxii. 19. 
dydzretpos, Xiv. 13. 
dvaréurety, xxii. Jo 
dvdoracts, li. 34. 
dvardocecOat, i Li 
dvarohy, i. 78. 
"Avdpéas, Vi, 14. 
dvexrérepov, x. 12, 
dvévdexrov, xvii. I. 
dvip, vi. 8, xxiv. de 
&vOpwros, vii. 8. 
dnordvat, i i. 39, iv. 3% 
“Avva, ii. 36. 
“Avvas, iii, 2. 

&vowa, vi. 11. 

dv6? dy, i. 20, xil, 3. 
dvrihauBdverOat, i, S4e 
dvrimapépxerOat, X. 31~ 
dvrlaepa, viii. 26. 
dvwOer, i. 3. 
dvwrepoy, xiv. 10, 
dmaryyé\\ew, viii. 20. 
dmapricpués, xiv, 28, 
Gras, iii. 21. 
ameOjs, i. 17. 
drrehrrifey, Vi. 35¢ 
dméxewv, vi. 24. 
&moros, xii. 46. 

dé, vil. 35. 

amd Tov viv, v. 10. 
amoypagy, ii. 2. 
émodéxer Gat, viii. 40, 
dmodtdbvat, Xx. 25. 
dmodoxidtepy, ix. 22, 
dmoxplvec Oat, i. 19. 
dmrohauBdvev, Vi. 34 
amonvewv, ii, 29. 
dmoNUrpwots, xxi. 28, 


551 


582 INDEX TO THE NOTES 


dromvlyew, vill. J 
dmooracOjvat, xxii, 42. 
dmoaré\Xe, iv. 18. 
dmécronos, Vi. 13. 
dmooroparifeyv, xi. 53. 
amoorpépev, Xxiil. 14. 
amordocec@at, ix. 61. 
dmorehety, xiii. 32. 
damorwdooe, ix. 5. 
cmopixew, xxi. 26, 
drew, vill, 16, xv. & 
darrecOat, Vii. 39. 
dpa, i, 66. 
apa, xviii. 8, 
'Apipabala, xxiii, 52. 
doaorgy, xi. 37. 
apro THs mpobécews, vi. de 
aproev, xiv. 34. 
dpxerOat, iii. 8, iv. 21, xii. 4h 
apxh K- e€ovsla, XX. 20, 
apxeepevs, iii. 2, ix. 22. 
apxereddns, xix. 2. 
doBeoros, lil, 17. 
ackds, V. 376 
acodprov, xii. G. 
ATWTWS, XVe IZ. 
dreviterw, iv. 20 
avAh, xi. 2i. 
avernpés, xix. 21. 
avrés, i, 16, ii. 38. 
d@arros, xxiv. 31. 
dgecis dpapriav, i, 7Je 
adopltew, vi. 22. 
E&dpwr, xi. 40, 
apurvoir, Vili. 23. 
axpetos, xvii. Ia. 

adxpt, Axpis, i. 20, iv. 13 
a&xupoy, il. 17. 


Babéws, Xxiv. I. 
Baddverr, vi. 48. 
_Badddyriovy, x. 4. 
Bddrcry, v. 375 xvi. 20, 
Bamwrigep, i il. 7. 
Bdaricya, iti. 3 
Barrioris, 6, ili. 7. 
BapaBBas, xxiii. 18. 
BapOodopuatos, vi. 14. 
Bacavitey, viii. 28. 
Bdcavos, xvi. 23. 
Baordfev, vil. 14, xiv. 27. 
Baros, vi. 44, Xx. 37- 
Bdros, xvie 6. 
Bdedvyya, xvie BS. 
BeefeBovr, xis 15. 
Beddv7, xviii. 25. 
ByGavla, xix. 29. 


BnOreéyp, ii. 4. 
Bybgaryh, xix. 29 

BI Bos, iii. 4. 

Blos, viii. 43. 
praodnula, v. 2B. 
BbOuvor, vi. 39. 

Bodh, xxii. 41. 
BovrerGat, x. 22. 
Bovdeuris, xxiii. 50, 
Bovdh rob Geod, vii. 3@ 
poriee iii. 5. 

Bpax. OP, i, 51. 

Bpédos, ii. 2 xviii, 15 
Bpéxerr, vii. 38. 
Bpvyuss, xiii. 28 


Bvooos, xvi. 19. 


Tafpr7p, i. 19. 

yaxopurduor, xxl, Bo 

Tadidala, i. 26. 

vapor, xii. 36, xiv. 8 

dp, xviii. ae xxiii, 22 

7¢, V. 36, xi. 

yéevva, xii. 5. 

yeved airy, xd. 32. 

yervar, i. 13. 

yévenua, iii. 7. 

Tevyncapér, v. I. 

Tepacnvés, sag 26. 

vi, 4, iv. 25. 

iver Bat, i i, 5, 41, iii. 2, iv. 36, vl 33 

ywadoKev, Xe 22. 

ywoplfew, ii, 17. 

yvwords, xxiii. 49. 
yoryufev, Ve 30 

ypagh, H, iv. 21. 


Satudrioy, iv. 33, Vile 33 
Saxrdnos, xv. 22. 
Sdxrvdos, Ocod, xi. 20, 
Savltev, vi. 34. 
danorhs, vii. 41. 

6é Kal, ili. 9. 

Benors, i. 13, V- 33. 

be7, ii. 49, iv. 43, ix. 22 
beicOat, v. 12. 

Sépecv, xii. 47. 

Seomérns, ii. 29. 
[devrepbarpwros], vi. Be 
SéxeoOat, xxii. 17. 

6id, v. 19. 

dd, T&Y mpopyTay, xviii, 3% 
SiaBddrew, xvi. I. 
diaBrémery, vi. 42. 
didBoNdos, iv. 2, viii, 12. 
OvaryyédAewv, ix. 60. 


| Ouaypnyopetv, ix. 32. 


Ill. GREEK WORDS 583 


BaPhny, xxil, 20. 
diaroyiouds, V. 22, 
Biauéverv, xxii. 28, 
Siapeplfew, xxii. IF 
dtavolyerw, ii, 23. 
Oiardnua, xi. 17. 
Stavuxrepeterv, vi. 12. 
dtamparyyareverOat, xix. 15 
Otacelew, iii, 14. 
diarrpéper, ix. 41, xxiii, 2, 
diarwfev, vii, 3. 
diardocery, iii, 13. 
diapéperv, xii. 7. 
drépxerOat, ii, 15, Ve 15. 
Suipynats, i. 1. 

Slkatos, i, 6. 

Oikavody, Vii. 29, 35 
dixalwyua, i. 6. 

Bixrvoy, Vv. 2. 

616, i. 35. 

Bixoroueir, xii. 46, 
Obyua, ii. I. 

Soxés, vi. 41. 

Goédfetv, ii, 20. 

dogdgew Tov Oedy, Vo 25. 
dodAn, i, 38. 

Gobdos, vil. 7, xv. 26, 
Box}, V. 29. 

Spaxyu, xv. 8 

Svvayus, iv. 14, 36. 
duvdorns, i. 52. 
duvards, i. 49. 

dive, iv. 40. 

Svoxbdws, xviil. 24, 
bapa, Vv. 9. 


fa, iv. 34. 

édy, xix. 40. 

€Gv, iv. 34, 41, xxii. 51. 
éavrov, éavray, xii, 1, xxi. 30 
éBdoujkovra, x. 1, 17. 
éyelpery, i. 69. 

éykakelv, D, évkaKety, 
ddaplvew, xix. 44. 

E0vn, Td, TOD Kdopov, xii, 30. 
E00s,_ kare 79, i. 8, 

el, xili, 22, xxii. 67. 

el oe beAyye, Vv. 36. 

el xal, xi. 8, xviii. 4. 

el ph, i iv. 26. 

elOicpévov, kara 7d, ii. 27, 1. 8 
elwObs, Kard 70, iv. 16. 
elvexev, ov, iv. 18, 

elev dé, i. 13, iv. 24. 

elmev TapaBodjv, Vi. 39. 
elxev mpés, i. 13. 

elpjvn, ii. 29. 


elpjvnp, els, vil. 50. 

els, iv. 23, 44, v. 16, Vii. I, 30. 

els, pula, &y, vill. 22, xiv. 18, xxiv. I. 

eladyew, ii. 27. 

elapépety, xi. 4. 

éx, e€, ii. 4, xl. 13. 

éx vexp@v, XX. 35» 

éxBdddeuv, Vi. 22. 

éxdidbvat, Xx. Qs 

éxdukeiv, Xvili. 3 

éxei, xiii, 28. 

éxeivos, X. 12, xxii, 22, 

éxxémrewy, ili, 9, xiii. 7. 

éxxpépac bat, xix. 48. 

éxdéyer Oat, vi. 13. 

éxhelrewv, xvi. 9, xxii, 32, xxlil. 45, 

éxpwuxryplfecr, xvi, 14. 

éxreipagew, iv. 12. 

éxm\jooer Oa, ii. 43. 

éxmvéew, xxiii. 46. 

Exoraots, v. 26. 

exrevérrepor, xxii. 43. 

ala, xix. 29, xxi. 37. 

Ehauoy, vii. 46. 

"Eady, xix. 29, xxl, 37. 

é\dxLoTOos, XVie 10. 

Aéyxeobat, i iii, 19. 

Freos, i 1. 50, 54, 74e 

*EXicaios, iv. 27. 

éhxobcbat, xvi. 20, 

*Eyupaots, xxiv. 13. 

éumipmddvat, Vi. 25. 

Eumpocdev, xix. 4, 28, 

év, IV. 32. 

év éfovalg, i. 32. 

éy after verbs of motion, i, 17, v. 16, 
vii. 17. 

évavtlov, xx. 26. 

vokos, vii. 25, xiii. 17. 

évdvewv, xxiv. 49. 

évedpete.y, xi, 54. 

évéxew, xi. 53. 

évaurdv Kuplov dexrédy, iv. 19. 

évkaxely, xviii. I. 

&voyra, Ta, xi, 41. 

Evripos, vii. 2. 

&yros bor, xvii. 2r. 

évrpérecOat, xviii. 2, Xx. IZ 

évwriov, i, 15. 

eaureio Gar, xxii. 31. 

eEaigyns, see ckégpvns. 

éEaTroaré\Newy, XX. 10, 

e£épxer Oar ard, iv. 35. 

@Ecort, xx, 22. 

edu, ii. 13, ix. 39 

é&7js, vil. II. 

eEvordvat, ii. 47~ 


eEodos, ix. 3%. 

eLoubevetv, xviii. 9. 
éfoucla, iv. 32, 36, ix. 1. 
éfovgla ro0 oxérous, xxii. 53. 
évalpew Puoviy, xi.127- 
éracxtverOat, ix. 26, 
émairetv, Xvi. 3. 

émdy, Xi. 22, 34. 
ETAVAYEL, Ve 3. 
éravatraverOat, X. Ge 
érre.0%, Vii. Ie 

éreOnmep, i, I. 
érépxerOat, i, 35, 
émepwrGp, iii. 10, 
éméxetv, XIV. 7. 
érnpedtew, vi. 28, 

éml, iv. 25, Ve 5. 

él rhs Bdrou, XX. 37e 
émiBiBdgerv, xix. 35. 
émtBhémewv, ix. 38. 

él B\nya, V. 36. 
emvywioKery, 1, 4, V. 22 
exvypagph, xxill. 

ér.odeiy, i. 25. 

émdiddvat, iv. 17. 
émifnrety, iv. 42. 
émixeioOat, Vv. 1, xxiii, 23 
emda Bdvea Bau, i 1X. 47 
émihelxew, xVi. 21. 
émtovawos, xi. 3. 
émumlarreww, i. 12, XV. 20. 
émioiticos, 1x. 12. 
émioxémrecOat, i. 68, vii. 16 
émioxdgerv, i. 35, ix. 34. 
émitKkoTy, xix. 44. 
éTLOTATNS, Ve 5. 
émiotpépev, viii. 55. 
emirx ve, XXill. 5. 
émirinay, iv. 39. 
emipdoKev, XXilie 54. 
émixelpev, i. I. 

épyaclay ddbvat, xii. 58 
&pnuot, i. 80. 

€cOnots, xxiii. II. 
éomépa, xxiv. 29. 

écwbev, Td, xi. 39; 40. 
Erepos, ix. 56, xxiii. 32. 
ért, i. 15. 

croudgev, ii. 31. 

ros, i. 24, ii. 4i. 
evayyert{ecOat, i. 19, il, 10 
edye, xix. 17. 

evyev}s, xix. 12, 
evdokety, iii, 22. 

evdoxla, ii, 14. 
evepyérns, xxii. 35 
edGeros, ix, 62. 


584 INDEX TO THE NOTES 


evBews, xii. 54. 
evxomwrepor, Vv. 23 
evaBys, ii. 25. 
evdoyetv, vi. 28, 
evAoynpevos, i. 42. 
evAoynTés, i. 68. 
evTévws, xxiii. 10, 
evxapioreiy, xxii. 17) 1Qe 
épypepla, i. 5. 
égiordvat, ii. Qe 
Exew, Vii. 42. 
Ews, iv. 42. 


Zaxaplas, i 1. 5. 
Smroris, vi. 15- 
$a, i. 37: 

fnrety, xiii. 24. 
ZopoBaBpen, iii. 27. 
fbn, xii. I, xiii, 226 
Surypeiv, v. 10. 

fun}, viii. 43. 
Swoyoveiy, xvii. 33. 


H, xv. a xvii. 2, 

H, Gdn, xii. 51. 
irreuovebewr, i li. 2, iil, Be 
tryeuovla, iii. I. 
NYVELWV, XX. 20. 

Mrckla, ii, 52, xii. 25. 
quépas, &v Tals, i. 39. 
tulora, 7a, xix. 8. 
‘Hpgdns, i 5. 

‘Hpwons (Antipas), iii, 1, ix. Jo 
“Hpwoids, i iii, 19. 
qouxagev, xiv. 3. 

ixos, iv. 37, xxi. 25. 


OdpuBos, iv. 36. 
Oavpudgev él, ii. 33. 
OcdoGat, v. 27. 

Gere, ix. 24, 54, xiii. 31, xx. 46s 
Oédnua, xxii. 42. 
Gedduiros, i. 3 
Oepamever, i lv. 40, Ve T5. 
Gépos, xxi. 30. 

Oplé, xxi. 18. 

OpbuBos, xxii. 44. 

Qvew, XV. 23. 


"Idetpos, viii. 41. 

"IdxwBos ZeBedalov, v. 10, Vis Te 
"IdkwBos ’Addalov, vie 15. 
lacOat, vy. 17, vi. 17. 

tacts, | xiii. 32. 

lov, i. 38. 

ldod ydp, i. 44. 

leparevew, i. 8. 


III. GREEK WORDS 


lepevs, v. 14, XVil. I4e 
"Teperys, xviii. 35. 
lepdy, ii. 46, iv. 9. 
"Tepooddvpa, ii. 22, 
*Tepovoarnp, €v, li, 250 
"Iyoods, i. 31. 
txavés, vii. 12, 
lkuds, viii. 6. 
tndoxecOat, xviii, 13. 
ludrioy, vi. 29. 
ipariopés, vii. 25. 
Wa, i. 43, iv. 3. 
"Tovda, i. 39. 
Tovdala, i. 5, 
xxiii. 5. 
*Iovdas "laxwBou, vi. 16. 
"Tovdas "Ioxapis0, vi. 16. 
lod-yyedos, xx. 35. 
lordvat, éorny, viii. 44. 
© © © ey éorus, i. 19. 
« 0 » ey oTadels, xviii. IT. 
*Iwava, viii. 3, xxiv.- 10. 
*Iwdvns ZeBedalov, v. 10, vi. 14. 
*Iwvas, xi. 29. 


iv. 44, Vii. 


ka'yw, Xvi. 9. 

xdpol, xvi. 9. 
xadaplfev, v. 12 
xabapicpés, ii, 22. 
Kaeffjs, i. 3, viii. Ie 
kabevdev, viii. 52. 
xaOlfew, iv. 20, xiv. 28. 
KaOort, i. 7. 

Kadds, i. 2. 

xal avrés, i. 16, Vv. 14, Vi. 20, 
kal yap, vi. 32. 
Kaid¢as, iii. 2, 

xawbs, v. 38. 

katpés, Vill. 13. 

Kaioap, ii. 1, xx. 24, 
kd\apos, vii. 24. 

kadelv, vi. 15, xiv. 12 
Kdimdos, XVili. 25. 
Kapiros, i. 42. 

Kdpoos, vi. 41. 

kard, viii. I. 

Kad’ iyuépav, 7d, xi. 3 
kata Aovkay, p. I. 
kard povas, ix. 18. 
kardayeuw, v. II. 
katatoxtvev, xiii. I7e 
karaxNlveuw, ix. 14. 
kataxpnuvifew, iv. 29, 
kaTadOdfew, xx. 6. 
Karahvew, xix. 7. 
kard\vpa, ii. 7, xxii. 1%. 
Karavoety, vi. 41, xii. 27. 


585 


KaTaméracpa, XXxill. 45. 
kaTam)éeuv, viii. 26, 
Korrapyeiy, xiii. 7. 
Karaprifew, vi. 40. 
kaTacKnvwo.s, ix. 58. 
karapidely, vii. 38, Xv. 20. 
KarévayTt, xix. 30. 
katépxecOat, iv. 316 
KaTnxeto Oat, 1. 4. 
KaTolKelv, xi. 26, 
katowy, xii. 55. 
Kadapvaovp, iv. 23, 31. 
Keto Oat, ii. 34. 

Képas, i, 69. 

Kepdrov, xv. 16, 
Keparh ywvlas, xx. 17. 
Knpvooew, ili. 3. 
KAalew, xix. 41. 
kAavOpds, xiii. 28, 
Kels TIS yuwoews, xi. 52. 
Kneéras, xxiv. 18, 
kAnpovopety, x. 25. 
KAlBavos, xii. 28, 
KAlvev, ix. 12. 

kAlvn, v. 19. 

khuldvov, v. 19. 
Khiola, ix. 14. 

KAvdwy, Vili. 24. 
kotAla, i. 15. 

kowwyvds, v. 10. 
Ko\AGoOat, x. IT. 
KéAmros, vi. 38. 

kéAmos ’ABpadu, xvi. 22, 
KoTLGY, V. 5. 

kémros, xi. 7. 

xotpla, xiii. 8. 
kbmrecOa, viii. 52. 
xépaé, xii. 24. 

k6pos, xvi. 7. 

Koguvos, ix. 17. 
KpauTddn, see kperdhy. 
kpavloy, xxiii. 33. 
Kpdomedov, Vili. 44. 
KpareioOat, xxiv. 16. 
KpdrioTos, i. 3. 
Kpavy?, i. 42. 
Kpe“aoBat, xxiii. 39. 
KpewdAn, XXxi. 34. 
kpnuves, vill. 33, 
kplvov, xii. 27. 

plots, xi. 42. 

KpvTTn, Xi. 33. 
Kupnvatos, xxiii. 26, 
Kup70s, ii. 2. 

Kvpuos, v. 17. 

Kupios, 6, vii. 13. 
kwoés, i. 62. 


586 INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Aayxdverr, i. 9. 
Adfapos, xvi. 20, 
Aathay, viii. 23. 
Aageurés, xxiii. 53. 
Aarpeverr, iv. 8. 

Aéyetr mapaBodiy, v. 36. 


Ady cot, buiv, vil. 9, 47, xvill. 14. 


Aeyewy, viii. 30. 
Aetroupyla, i. 23. 
Aewrby, xii. 59, xxi. 2 
Aevls, v. 27. 

Afjpos, xxiv. II. 
Anoris, X. 30. 

Aldos, iii. 8, xx. Je 
Aucuay, xx. 18, 

Aluvy, Vv. Te 

Aruds, Ve 25. 

Abyos, i. 2. 

Aéyos Tod Ocod, viii. IE. 
owds, xxi, IL. 
Avoavias, iii. I. 
Avowredet, XvVil. 2. 
AurpodoOat, xxiv. ZI. 
Adrpwots, i. 68. 
Auxvla, viii. 16. 
Adxvos, Vili. 16, 


Maydadnv}, viii. 2, teal: 10. 
pakdplos, 1. 45, Vie 20. 
paxpay, xv. 13. 

paxpober, xvi. 23, Xvili. 13 
MaxpoBupety, xvii. 7. 
paKpés, xix. 12. 

papwvas, XVI. Oe 

Mdpé@a, x. 38. 

Mapla a *TaxwBov, xxiv. Io. 


Mapla 7 Maydarnvi, viii. 2, xxiv. 10. 


Mapla ) MdpGas ddchpy, x. 39. 
paprupeir, iv. 22. 
Hapriptoy, els, V. 14s 
pdoree, vii. 21. 
Mar@aios, vi. 15. 
pdxatpa, xxii. 38. 
peyartve, i. 46, 58 
Heyahn pov, i. 42. 
pédew, ix. 31. 

per, viii. 5 

Bev ody, iii. 18. 
pévev, xix, 6. 
pevodv, xi. 28. 
Heptvav, X. 416 
Hépts, X. 42. 
HepLori)s, xii. 14. 
Heo ovUKTLOV, xi. 5. 
péow, év, vill. 7. 
peradddvat, ili, 1%. 


perdvowa, iii. 3, v. 

perewplferOa, xii. 29. 

METOXOS, V. 7- 

Hexpt, xvi. 16. 

BH interrogative, | X. 15. 

Hh prohibitive, vii. 6. 

#4 with participles, i. 20 

Bh yévorro, xx. 16, 

BA wore, ili. 15. 

nial 1. 24. 

PNVUEY, XX. 37. 

pixpbrepos, 4, vil, 28, 

puceiv, xiv. 26. 

priya, xxiv. Ie 

pynpectov, xxiv. I. 

pynorever Gat, i, 27, il, 5 

Boys, ix. 39. 

pObdtos, xi. 33. 

Hovoyers, vii. 12, Vill. 42, ix. a 

Bopor, vii. 37. 
pwpalvey, xiv. 34. 

Muwiiojs, ii. 22. 


Nafapér, i. 26, 
Nafapnvés, iv. 34 
Nat, vii. 11. 
vexpos, XV. 24. 
véos, V. 37» 

whwtos, X. 21. 
voids, Vil. 30. 
vowodtddoxados, Ve Ife 
vbyos, 6, xvi. 16. 
bros, xii. 55. 
vippn, xii. 53. 
vunper, Ve 34 
vov, xi. 30. 

vir, dard rod, i, 48. 
vie, i ii. 37. 


Eddov, xxii. 52, xxiii. 32 


6 54, i. 20. 

76 with clauses, i. 62, i ix. 46. 
TOU with infinitives, i 1. 74, 77s 
OTD sas . i 8, iil, 2% 
7 Kad” hppa, xi. = 
éduvacOat, ii. 48, xvi. 24. 
olkérys, xvi. 13. 

olkovdpos, xii. 42, xvi. I. 
olkos, ii. 4. 

olkounévn, 7, ii. 1, ive 5 
xad’ 5dns, iv. 14. 

SuBpos, xii. 54. 

butreiv, xxiv. 14. 

Opuolws, xiii. 3, 5» 

duonoyeir ep, xil. 


Ill. GREEK WORDS 


éréyart, v. 27. 

éxl rg dvépart, ix. 48. 

bfos, xxiii. 36. 

Smicbev, xxiii, 26, 

érraclay, i. 22, 

brrecOat, xxii. 43. 

Srrws dy, ii, 35¢ 

dpOpltew, xxi. 38 

dpiri, %, i. 39. 

8pos, ix. 28. 

8s attracted, i. 4, iii, 19. 

Sorts, i. 20, ii. 4, Vil. 37. 

bray, xi. 22, 34. 

dr. causal, ii. 30. 

5re recitative, vii. 16. 

rt ambiguous, i. 45, vii. 16, 39. 

od with a participle, vi. 42. 

ob. 2 was, EYE 

ody, iii, 7, Xiv. 34. 

odros contemptuous, vii. 39, xiii. 33, 
xiv. 30. 

édpis, iv. 29. 


éydma, iii, 14. 


wdys, xxi. 35. 

wadevery, xxiii. 16, 
wais, vi. 7, Xv. 26. 

mais avrod, i, 54. 
Tavdoxetoy, X. 34. 
mavoupyla, xx. 23. 
mwavredés, els Td, xiii, 1B. 
wdvrodev, xix. 43. 
wdyrus, iv. 23. 

wapd, v. I, vii. 38. 
waod, after comparatives, iii, 13. 
mapapidtecOat, xxiv. 29. 
mapaBon%, iv. 23. 
mapaBodhy édeyer, v. 36. 
mapaBodhy elev, Vis 39 
Tmapayyédev, V. 14. 
maparylvecOat, vil. 4. 
mapddecos, Xxili. 43. 
mapadddvat, i. 2, vi. 16, ix. G4 
mapddogov, v. 26. 
mapatreiobat, xiv. 18, 
mapdkAnots, ii. 25. 
mapakodovGely, i. 3. 
mapahapBdvev, xviii, 33. 
mapadverOat, v. 18. 
TAapacKkevy}, XXill. 54. 
TapaTnpelv, Vi 7. 
Taparhpyots, Xvi. 20, 
mapaTiOévat, x. 8, xi. Ge 
mapapéperv, Xxil. 42. 
Tapaxpnua, V. 25. 
wapeivat, xiii. I. 
wapépxeoOai, xi. 42. 


587 


wapéxe.y, xi. 7. 
wapiordve.y, il, 22, 
wapeorGres, ol, xix. 24. 
wapotkeiy, xxiv. 18. 
was, i, 66, iii, 16, iv. 13, vi. 30, ix. 42 
waca odpé, iii iii, 6. 
rarely, x 19, xxi. 24. 
warhp, ii. 49, xi. 2. 
matpla, ii. 4. 
aé0n, viii. 29. 
mwedwvds, vi. 17. 
melBecGat, xvi. 31. 
Tle:AGros, i iii. I, xiii, I, xxiii, 3. 
mweipdtew, iv. 2. 
metpagpuos, Xi. 4. 
mwéurrevy, iv. 18, 
wevOepd, iv. 38. 
mwevixpbs, : xxi, 2, 
wépara Tis vis, TA, xi. 31. 
wepl, Gayudfew, ii, 18, 
mwepl, 7, Ta, xxii. 37. 
mepitivvveba, xii. 35. 
weplhumos, xviii. 23. 
mwepirlirew, X. 30. 
mepioeioOat, XVii. 33. 
wepiow Go Gat, x. 40. 
mwepiocevev, xii, 15. 
mepioabrepos, vii, 26, 
weptotepd, ili. 22, 
weplxwpos, iii. 
Tlérpos, v. 8, vi. 14. 
mivaxlo.oy, i. 63. 
WioTevely, XVi, II, XXIV. 24. 
aloris, Vv. 20. 
mors, xii. 42. 
TmrAavacbat, xxi. 8, 
mAareia, X. To. 
mAeovetia, xii. 15. 
mAryas emit eva, X. 30. 
wAnGew, i, 15. 
TAGs, i, 10. 
Trnnpvpa, vi. 48. 
AH, Vi. 24, X. II, 20. 
mAnpns A€mpas, Vv. 12. 
aAnpodopeiv, i, 4. 
mAnaoloy, x. 29. 
whovew, Vv. 2. 
rveiua dyov, f 15. 
mvedps,, i, 47: 
Toei, Xxii, 19. 

moteiv é\eos, i. 72, X= 37: 
movety kdprovs, iii, 8. 
movety Kpdros, i, 51. 
molumov, xii. 32. 
®otos, v. 19, vi. 32. 
wédts Aavelé, ii. 4. 
wéXus Tovida, i. 36. 


588 INDEX TO THE NOTES 


mopever Oat, iv. 30. 
moppwOev, xvii. 12. 
moramés, i. 20, Vil. 39. 
ToTHptov, xxii. 17. 

m6das, mapa Tods, vil. 38 
Tparyparever Oat, xix. IZ 
mpaxTwp, xii. 58. 

mpaéts, Xxili. 51. 
Tpacoey, lil. 13. 
wemparyyevov Eorw, xxiii. 15 
tpeoBuréptov, xxil. 66. 
rpecBvrepot, Vii. 3. 

ply, ii, 26. 

mpoBddrev, Xxi. 30. 
mpodérns, vi. 16. 
mpoépxerOat, i. 17. 
mpobécews, ol Epror Tis, vi 3 
mpoxdrrety, ii, 52. 
TpomeeT Gv, xxi. Iq. 

amps, xxiv. 50. 

elev mpbs, 1. 13, Ve FQ 

Ta mpbs, xiv. 32. 
MpordaTavgy, X. 35. 
mpoodéxXer Oat, XV. Ze 

mpoc oxy, iii. 15. 
mposepydgerOat, xix. 16, 
mporevxer Oa, ili, 21. 
Wpocevx?, Vi. 12. 
wpocéxeuv, xii, Ie 
wpookivew, iv. 7. 
mpoomrotetc Oat, xxiv. 20. 
mpoorOévat, ili. 20, xvii. §. 
mpocOels elev, xix. II. 
mpocéGero wéuwat, xx. IIe 
Tporpuwvety, vi. 13. 
mpoowavtev, xi. 46. 
mpbowror, li. 31, ix. 51, 53. 
tmpbowrrov hauBdvew, Xx. 216 
mpopnrevety, i. 67. 
mpopyrat, ol, xvi. 16. 
mpopyrts, li. 36. 
mpwroxadedpla, xi. 43. 
mpwroxhola, xiv. 7. 
mp&ros, ii. 2, XV. 22, xix. 47. 
mparov, xii. I. 

pwr oroKos, il. 7. 

Trepvy.oy Tov lepod, iv. Qe. 
wTUoV, iii. J7- 

TTUTTEW, IV. 20. 

TT Gots, li. 34. 

TT OOS, iv. 18. 

TUAW, XVi. 20. 

muvOdver Gat, XVill. 36, 

Top, iii. 16, xil. 49. 

mupl acBéorTy, ili. I7e 
muperds wéyas, iv. 33. 

wos, i. 34, vi. 42. 


lee 65, ‘t 15, §Be 
[oat] 9 

pihooew, v. Oy ix. 42 
plarew, iv. 35. 
poupala, ii, 35 

poun, xiv. 21. 

plots, Vili. 43. 


odBBaropr, -ra, iv. 3¥o 
ZaddovKator, xx. 27e 
odxkos, x. 13. 
ZadaGepr, iil. 27. 
gahevew, xxi. 26, 
Zapapelrys, ix. 52 
Zdperra, iv. 

odpé, ili. 6. 

Zaravas, x. 18% 

odrov, xiii, 2¥6 

onpeioy, ii. 34e 

ons, xii. 33 

CLAyWY, Vi. 296 

Zidwrla, iv. 26. 

olkepa, i. 15. 

Drwdp, xiii. 4. 

Zluwy, vi. 14. 

Liwwy 6 fprurhs, vi. 15. 
Zluwv Papicaios, vii. 40. 
Zlpwv 6 Kupyvaios, xxi, 26 
givamt, xiii. 19. 

owduy, Xxili. 53. 
owidtew, xxii. 316 
ovreutés, XV. 23. 
oiTouérptov, Xii. 42. 
oxavdanlfev, vil. 230 
oxdydador, xvii. Ie 
oKnvh, xvi. 9. 

oKipTay, i, 41. 

cxoptrlos, xi. 12, 
oxvOpwrol, xxiv. 17. 
oxvAdewpy, Vii. 6. 

oKddov, xi, 22. 

gopés, vil. 14. 
govddptoy, xix. 20, 
copla, i ii. 52. 

% copia Tod cod, xi. Qe 
omelpwy, 6, Vill. 5- 
omevdey, ii, 16. 
omhdyxva, i. 78. 
omhayxvlferBat, vii. 13. 
om dpi, vi. I. 

ordous, xxiii. 19. 
craupbs, ix. 23, Xxili. 266 
OTON}, XV. 22. 

orépa paxalpys, : XXi. 246 
orparevouevot, iil. 14. 
orpdérevpa, xxiii. 11. 


orparnyol Tob lepov, xxii. 4. 


oTpwrvview, xxii, 12, 
ovyyevls, i. 36. 
ouKopopéa, Xix. 4. 
ouxopavreiy, iii, 14. 
Dupewy, ii, 25. 

obv, i. 56. 
cuvaywyh, iv. 15. 


ovvayTiiapBdver Bat, X. 4D. 


ouvaprd gery, Vili. 29. 
ovvBddrewv, ii, 19. 
ouvédpoy, xxii. 66, 
owveivat, ix. 18, 
civests, ii. 47- 
ouvevioxeiv, xi. 48. 
ouvexety, iv. 33. 
owOdAGcOat, xx. 18, 
ouvrAapBdverr, i. 24. 
cuvooia, ii. 44. 
owvoxy}, Xxi. 25. 
ouvrlarewy, vi. 49. 
owrvlyey, Vili. 14, 42. 
guvmopever Oat, xiv. 25 
gurney, ii. 19. 
ouvriOévat, Xxil. 5. 
ouvptecOat, vill. 7. 
Zvpios, iv. 27. 

oxord fev, xi. 25. 
TwpariKds, iii. 22. 
owrip, i. 47; li, II. 
owrnpla, i, 71 
owrip.oy, ii, 30. 


Tapetov, xii. 3. 
TATEWOUY, xiv. 1, 
Tamelvwors, i, 

Te, li. 16. 

TéKvor, 

TeXeElV, li. 39. 
TEAELODY, 1x. 32. 
Tedelwaots, i. 45. 
TeAeoHopely, Vill. 14. 
Téos éxewv, xxii. 37. 
TeNwvS, ili, 12, Ve 30. 
TEAWVLOV, Ve. 27. 
TeTpapxery, ill. I. 
TiBeplos Katoap, iii. 1. 


Tec ev TH Kapélg, i. 66, 


tls é& dudy, xi. 5. 
Tolvuv, XX. 25. 
TOLOUTOS, XViil. 16, 
Tékos, xix. 23. 
rémos, xiv. 9. 

rémos wedtvds, vi. 17 
Tpdmefa, xix. 23. 
rpugt, vii, 25. 


GREEK WORDS 


bBplfew, xi. 45. 
byralverv, v. 31, vii. 10. 
trypov Eddov, xxiii. 31. 
bdpwrixds, xiv. 2. 

ulds T. dvOpwmov, v. 24. 
ulds ‘YWlorou, i. 32. 
buérepos, xvi. 12. 
Srapxev, Vill. 41. 
bmdpxovra, TH, Vill. 3. 
brép, xvi. 8. 
Umrepipavos, i, 51. 
danperys, i. 2, iv. 20, 
br6, iv. 2. 

on’ ‘obpavdy, ty, XVil. 24e 
brodeckvivat, iii. 7. 
brodéxecOa, x. 38. 
brddnya, ili, 16, ix. 3. 
dmoxplvecOat, xx. 20. 
dToKpirhs, vi. 42. 


UrohauBavery, vil. 43, X. 3Q. 


dmopéve, il. 43. 


Uromovy, vill. 15, Xxi. 19. 


Umroorpépey, i. 56. 
dmoxwpetv, ix. 10. 
Srwmridfew, xvill. 5. 
vorepeicOat, xv. 14. 
borépnua, xxi. 4. 
ByiaTos, i. 32, viii. 28. 


pdryos, vii. 34. 
pdparé, iii. 5. 

Papicato, v. 176 

parvn, ii. 7. 

P0dvw, xi. 20. 
piddpyupos, xvi. 14. 
PiAnua, vil. 45, xxii. 48 
@ikurmos, vi. 14. 


@ikurmos rerpdpx7s, ili. & 


pynovcbat, iv. 35. 
PoBov, un, i. 13. 
popos, xx. 22. 
poprloy, xi. 46. 
ppayuds, Xiv. 23 
Ppdvyats, i. 17. 
gpovluws, xvi. 8 
puraky, li. 8, xii. 38 
gwreds, ix. 58. 
guwveiv, viii. 8, xiv. 12. 
puvyh éyévero, iii. 22. 
govt peyadn, i. 42. 
puwvyy alpew, xvii. 13 


xalperv, i, 14. 


| xaAgr, Ve 5e 


xAdpak, xix. 43. 


589 


590 


xauplferba, vil. 21, 42. 
xdpis, ii. 52, iv. 22. 
xapiTovr, i. 28. 

xdopa, xvi. 26. 

xelp Kuplov, i. 66, 
Xelpas émerBévan, i lv. 40. 
xtipa, vii. 12. 

XiTWwy, iii, II, Vie 2Qe 
Xwpafely, x. 13. 
xopés, xv. 25. 
xopragerv, vi. 21. 
XpGV, Xi. 5- 
XpeoPrreT 7s, Vile 420 
xpnuarlyerw, ii, 

xplev, iv. 18. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Xpiords, 4, ii. 26, ix. 20, 
Xpicrds Kuptos, ii, 11. 
Xwpa, xxi, 21. 


parudry, év BIBAy, xx. 47 
Yaruots, év, xxiv. 44. 
Ymrapagr, xxiv. 39. 
Yaglfey, xiv. 28. : 
Yuxn, i. 46, ix. 25, xii, 19, 23, xx 19) 
pure, Vir Ie 


doatrus, xiii, 5. 
aoel, i. 56. 

Sore, i iv. 29. 
epedetoGas, ix. 35 





INDEX IV. ENGLISH AND LATIN WORDS 


aporéari, xxiv. 4 
by and by, xvii. 7. 
Calvary, xxiii. 33- 
chaos, xVi. 26. 
cousin, i. 36. 
decurto, xxiii. 50. 


dispensator, xii. 42, xvi, Bo 


manicabat, xxi. 38- 
occupy, xix. 13. 
PAVEMEREATE, XIX. Aho 


pignerarius, xii. 58. 
procurator, xvi. 1. 
quaterducatus, iil, 1, 19 
rate, iv. 35. 

room, xiv. 9. 

Sontis, xxi. 34. 

subsannare, xvi, 14, xxill, 3g 
thought, xii. 22. 
venttlabrum, iii. 1J- 

wsllices, xii, 42, XVio Bo 


The International Critical Commentary. 





“4 decided advance on all other commentartes.’’ — THE OUTLOOK. 


~ DEUTERONOMY. 


By the Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


“No one could be better qualified than Professor Driver to write a critical 
and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy. His previous works are author- 
ities in all the departments involved; the grammar and lexicon of the Hebrew 
language, the lower and higher criticism, as well as exegesis and Biblical the- 
ology; ... the interpretation in this commentary is careful and sober in the 
main. A wealth of historical, geographical, and philological information illus- 
trates and elucidates both the narrative and the discourses. Valuable, though 
concise, excursuses are often given.” — The Congregationalist. 


“Tt is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament commentary 
in English upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and especially one of such merit. 
This I find superior to any other Commentary in any language upon Deuter- 
onomy.”’ — Professor E. L. Curtis, of Yale University. 


“This volume of Professor Driver’s is.marked by his well-known care and 
accuracy, and it will be a great boon to every one who wishes to acquire a 
thorough knowledge, either of the Hebrew language, or of the contents of the 
Book of Deuteronomy, and their significance for the development of Old Tes- 
tament thought. The author finds scope for displaying his well-known wide 
and accurate knowledge, and delicate appreciation of the genius of the 
Hebrew language, and his readers are supplied with many carefully con- 
structed lists of words and expressions. He is at his ‘best in the detailed 
examination of the text.” — London Atheneum. 


“Tt must be said that this work is bound to take rank among the best com- 
mentaries in any language on the important book with which it deals. On 
every page there is abundant evidence of a scholarly knowledge of the litera- 
ture, and of the most painstaking care to make the book useful to thorough 
students.” — The Lutheran Churchman. 


“The deep and difficult questions raised by Deuteronomy are, in every in- 
stance, considered with care, insight, and critical acumen. The student who 
wishes for solid information, or a knowledge of method and temper of the 
new criticism, will find advantage in consulting the pages of Dr. Driver.” — 
Cton’s Herald, 


Zhe guternational Oritical Commentary. 





“We believe this series to be of epoch-making importance.” 
— The N. Y. EvanceEuist. 


JUDGES. 


By Dr. GEORGE FOOT MOORE, D.D., 
| Professor of Theology, Harvard University. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


“The typographical execution of this handsome volume is worthy of the 
scholarly character of the contents, and higher praise could not be given it.” 
— Professor C. H. Toy, of Harvard University. 


“This work represents the latest results of ‘Scientific Biblical Scholarship,’ 
and as such has the greatest value for the purely critical student, especially on 
the side of textual and literary criticism.” — Zhe Church Standard. 


“ Professor Moore has more than sustained his scholarly reputation in this 
work, which gives us for the first time in English a commentary on Judges not 
excelled, if indeed equalled, in any language of the world.” — Professor 
L. W. BATTEN, of P. £. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 


“ Although a critical commentary, this work has is practical uses, and by 
its divisions, headlines, etc., it is admirably adapted to the wants of all 
thoughtful students of the Scriptures. Indeed, with the other books of the 
series, it is sure to find its way into the hands of pastors and scholarly lay- 
men.” — Portland Zion’s Herald, 


“Like its predecessors, this volume will be warmly welcomed — whilst to 
those whose means of securing up-to-date information on the subject of which 
it treats are limited, it is simply invaluable.” — Zadinburgh Scotsman. 


“ The work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and indifference 
to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least refreshing... . Itisanoble 
introduction to the moral forces, ideas, and influences that controlled the 
period of the Judges, and a model of what a historical commentary, with a 
practical end in view should be.” — The Independent. 


“The work is marked by a clear and forcible style, by scholarly research, by 
critical acumen, by extensive reading, and by evident familiarity with the 
Hebrew. Many of the comments and suggestions are valuable, while the 
index at the close is serviceable and satisfactory.” — Philadelphia Presbyterian. 


“This volume sustains the reputation of the series for accurate and wide 
scholarship given in clear and strong English, . . . the scholarly reader will 
find delight in the perusal ef this admirable commentary.” — Zion's Herald. 


= 


The International Critica? Commentary, 





© Richly helpful to scholars and ministers.’—Tue PRESBYTERIAN BANNER. 


The Books of Samuel 


BY 
REV. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., 
Profess-~ of Biblical History and Interpretation tn Amherst College. 





Crown 8vo, Net $3.00. 


«¢Protessor Smith’s Commentary will for some time be the standart 
work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly work sq 
faithfully accomplished.” — Zhe Atheneum. 


‘‘Tt is both critical and exegetical, and deals with original Hebrew and 
Greek. It shows painstaking diligence and considerable research.” — The 
Presbyterian. 


‘« The style is clear and forcible and sustains the well-won reputation of 
the distinguished author for scholarship and candor. All thoughtful stu- 
dents of the Scriptures will find the work helpful, not only on account of its 
specific treatment of the Books of Samuel, on which it is based, but because 
of the light it throws on and the aid it gives in the general interpretation of 
the Scriptures as modified by present-day criticism.”—The Philadelphia 
Press. 


“The literary quality of the book deserves mention. We do not usually 
go to commentaries for models of English style. But this book has a dis- 
tinct, though unobtrusive, literary flavor. It is delightful reading. The 
translation is always felicitous, and often renders further comment need- 
less.” — The Evangelist. 


«<The treatment is critical, and at the same time expository. Conserva- 
tive students may find much in this volume with which they cannot agree, 
but no one wishing to know the most recent conclusions concerning this 
part of sacred history can afford to be without it.”—Philadelphia Presby- 
terian Journal. 


‘‘The author exhibits precisely that scholarly attitude which will com- 
mend his work to the widest audience.” — The Churchman. 


‘«The commentary is the most complete and minute hitherto published 
by an English-speaking scholar.” —Ziterature. 


“<The volumes of Driver and Moore set a high standard for the Old 
Testament writers; but I think Professor Smith’s work has reached the 
same high level. It is scholarly and critical, and yet it is written in a spirit 
of reverent devotion, a worthy treatment of the sacred text.”—Pror, L. W. 
Batten, of P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 


She Internationa’ Critica? Commentary. 





” 4 detided advance on all other commentaries.” —THE OUTLOOK. 





PROVERBS 


By the Rev. CRAWFORD H. TOY, D.D., LL.D. 
Professor of Hebrew in Harvard University. 





Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 





*¢Tn careful scholarship this volume leaves nothing to be desired. Its in- 
terpretation is free from theological prejudice. It will be indispensable to 
the careful student, whether lay or clerical.” —TZhe Outlook. 


** Professor Toy’s ‘Commentary’ will for many years to come remain a 
handbook for both teachers and learners, and its details will be studied with 
critical care and general appreciation.” —The Atheneum. 


‘The commentary itself is a most thorough treatment of each verse in 
detail, in which the light of the fullest scholarship is thrown upon the mean- 
ing. The learning displayed throughout the work is enormous. Here is a 
commentary at last that does not skip the hard places, but grapples with 
every problem and point, and says the best that can be said.” —-Presbyterian 
Banner. 


‘« Professor Toy’s commentary on Proverbs maintains the highest standard 
of the International Critical Commentaries. We can give no higher praise. 
Proverbs presents comparatively few problems in criticism, but offers large 
opportunities to the expositor and exegete. Professor Toy’s work is 
thorough and complete.”—T7he Congregationalist, 


‘«This addition to ‘The International Critical Commentary’ has the same 
characteristics of thoroughness and painstaking scholarship as the preceding 
issues of the series. In the critical treatment of the text, in noting the 
various readings and the force of the words in the original Hebrew, it leaves 
nothing to be desired.” — The Christian Intelligencer. 


‘« A first-class, up-to-date, critical and exegetical commentary on the Book 
of Proverbs in the English language was one of the crying needs of Biblical 
scholarship. Accordingly, we may not be yielding to the latest addition to 
the International Critical Series the tribute it deserves, when we say that it 
at once takes the first place in its class. That place it undoubtedly deserves, 
however, and would have secured even against much more formidable com- 
petitors than it happens te have. It is altogether a well-arranged, lucid 
exposition of this unique book in the Bible, based on a careful study of the 
text and the linguistic and historical background of every part of it.”—TZhe 
Interior. 


‘‘ While this commentary is called ‘critical’ and is such, it is not one in 
which the apparatus is spread out in detail; it is one which any intelli- 
gent English reader can readily use and thoroughly understand,”—TZie 
Evangelist. 


The Zuternational Oritical Commentary. 





AMOS AND HOSEA. 


By WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D. 


Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the University of Chicage. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. Postage, 20 cents. 





* His book combines thorough technical scholarship with large measure of 
ethical and spiritual insight, and we think his Commentary on Amos and Hosea 
will take its place among the best in this very excellent series.” — 7he Outlook. 


* Yt is unnecessary to say that in scholarly completeness, Dr. Harper’s volume 
ranks with the best of the International Critical Commentary Series.” — The 
Standard, 


“The commentary is remarkable for its clear analysis, and exhaustive in its 
minute completeness. It furnishes materials to the student from which he may 
form his own judgment rather than seeks to impress dogmatic conclusions.” 
— The Watchman. 


“7 think it safe to say that in no language can there be found such a 
scholarly piece of work on the two important prophets, Amos and Hosea.” — 
Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of St. Mark’s Church, New York 
City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 


‘Professor Harper’s critical position is that of sound progressive scholar- 
ship. He possesses also the gift of the true teacher of interesting others in 
his subject. The volume will easily take its place as a most important com- 
mentary on these prophets.” — Congregationalist. 


“T shall have pleasure in recommending it to all students in our Seminary. 
This book fills, in the most favorable manner, a long-felt want for a good 
critical commentary or two of the most interesting books in the Old 
Testament.” — Rev. Lewis B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford 
Theological Seminary. 


“He has gone, with characteristic minuteness, not only into the analysis 
and discussion of each point, endeavoring in every case to be thoroughly 
exhaustive, but also into the history of exegesis and discussion, Nothing at 
all worthy of consideration has been passed by. The consequence is that 
when one carefully studies what has been brought together in this volume, 
either upon some passage of the two prophets treated, or upon some question 
of critical or antiquarian importance in the introductory portion of the volume, 
one feels that he has obtained an adequately exhaustive view of the subject.” 
— The [nterior, 


ahe Zuternational Oritical Commentary. 





“ We deem it as needful for the studious pastor to possess himsef 
of these volumes as to obtain the best dictionary and encyclopedia.” 
— THE CONGREGATIONALIST. 


ST. MARK. 


By the Rev. E.. P. GOULD, D.D., 
‘Cate Professor of New Testament Exegesis, P, E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 


“ tx: point of scholarship, of accuracy, of originality, this last addition to tha 
series is worthy of its predecessors, while for terseness and keenness of exegesis, 
we should put it first of them all.” — Zhe Congregationalist. 


“The whole make-up is that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive criticay 
study of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind ever attempted in thy 
English language, and to students and clergymen knowing the proper use o¥ 
a commentary it will prove an invaluable aid.” — The Lutheran Quarterly. 


“ Professor Gould has done his work well and thoroughly. ... The com 
mentary is an admirable example of the critical method at its best.... Thp 
Word study . . . shows not only familiarity with all the literature of the sub. 
ject, but patient, faithful, and independent investigation. ... It will rank 
among the best, as it is the latest commentary on this basal Gospel.” — Thy 
Christian Intelligencer. 


“Tt will give the student the vigorously expressed thought of a very thought 
ful scholar.” — The Church Standard. 


“Dr. Gould’s commentary on Mark is a large success, . . . and a credit ta 
American scholarship. ... He has undoubtedly given us a commentary on 
Mark which surpasses all others, a thing we have reason to expect will be true 
in the case of every volume of the series to which it belongs.” — The Biblical 
World. 


“The volume is characterized by extensive learning, patient attention te 
details and a fair degree of caution.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 


“The exegetical portion of the book is simple in arrangement, admirable 
in form and condensed in statement. ... Dr. Gould does not slavishly follow 
any authority, but expresses his own opinions in language both concise and 
clear.” — The Chicago Standard. 


“In clear, forcible and elegant language the author furnishes the results of 
the best investigations on the second Gospel, both early and late. He treats 
these various subjects with the hand of a master.” — Boston Zion’s Herald. 


“The author gives abundant evidence of thorough acquaintance with the 
facts and history in the case. ... His treatment of them is always fresh and 
scbelarly, and oftentimes helpful.” = Zhe Wew York Observer. 


The Gnternational Critical Commentary. 





“Tt is hardly necessary to say that this series will stand first 
among all English serial commentaries on the Bible.” 
— THE BIBLICAL WORLD. 


ST. LUKE. 


By the Rev. ALFRED PLUITIIER, D.D., 


Master of University College, Durham. Formerly Fellow and Senior Tutor of 
Trinity College, Oxford, 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


In the author’s Critical Introduction to the Commentary 1s contained a full 
sreatment of a large number of important topics connected with the study of 
the Gospel, among which are the following: The Author of the Book — The 
Sources of the Gospel — Object and Plan of the Gospel— Characteristics, 
Style and Language — The Integrity of the Gospel—The Text — Literary 
History. 

FROM THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 


If this Commentary has any special features, they will perhaps be found in 
the illustrations from Jewish writings, in the abundance of references to the 
Septuagint, and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in the 
frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin versions, and in the attention 
which has been paid, both in the Introduction and throughout the Notes, to 
the marks of St. Luke’s style. 


“Tt is distinguished throughout by learning, sobriety of judgment, and 
sound exegesis. It is a weighty contribution to the interpretation of the 
Third Gospel, and will take an honorable place in the series of which it forms 
2 part.” — Prof. D. D. SALMOND, in the Critical Review. 

“We are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy of the iuter- 
pretations. ... It seems to us that the prevailing characteristic of the book 
is common sense, fortified by learning and piety.” — 7he Herald and Presbyter. 

“An important work, which no student of the Word of God can safely 
neglect.” — The Church Standard. 

“The author has both the scholar’s knowledge and the scholar’s spirit 
necessary for the preparation of such a commentary.... We know of 
aothing on the Third Gospel which more thoroughly meets the wants of the 
Biblical scholar.” — The Outlook. 

“The author is not only a profound scholar, but a chastened and reverent 
Christian, who undertakes to interpret a Gospel of Christ, so as to show 
Christ in his grandeur and loveliness of character.” — The Southern Church- 
wan. 

“Tt is a valuable and welcome addition to our somewhat scanty stock of 
first-class commentaries on the Third Gospel. By its scholarly thoroughness 
it well sustains the reputation which the INTERNATIONAL SERIES has already 
won.” — Prof, J. H. THAYER, of Harvard University. 

This volume having been so recently published, further notices are net yet 
svaslabie, 


The Zuternational Oritical Commentary, 





“ For the student this new commentary promises to be inaispem 
sable.” —The METHODIST RECORDER. 


ROMANS. 


By the Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., 
Lady Margaret Professor of Bivinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 


AND THE 


Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., 
Principal of King’s College, London, 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


“From my knowledge of Dr. Sanday, and from a brief examination of the 
book, I am led to believe that it is our best critical handbook to the Epistle. 
It combines great learning with practical and suggestive interpretation.” — 
Professor GEORGE B. STEVENS, of Vale University. 

“ Professor Sanday is excellent in scholarship, and of unsurpassed candor. 
The introduction and detached notes are highly interesting and instructive. 
This commentary cannot fail to render the most valuable assistance to all 
earnest students. The volume augurs well for the series of which it is a mem- 
ber.” — Professor GEORGE P. FISHER, of Yale University. 

“The scholarship and spirit of Dr. Sanday give assurance of an interpreta- 
tion of the Epistle to the Romans which will be both scholarly and spiritual.” 
— Dr. LYMAN ABBOTT. 

“The work of the authors has been carefully done, and will prove an 
acceptable addition to the literature of the great Epistle. The exegesis is 
acute and learned ... The authors show much familiarity with the work 
of their predecessors, and write with calmness and lucidity.” — Mew York 
Observer. 

“ We are confident that this commentary will find a place in every thought- 
ful minister’s library. One may not be able to agree with the authors at some 
points, — and this is true of all commentaries, — but they have given us a work 
which cannot but prove valuable to the critical study of Paul’s masterly epis- 
tle.” — Zion's Advocate. 

“We do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on Romans 
yet written in English. It will do much to popularize this admirable and 
much needed series, by showing that it 1s possible to be critical and scholarly 
and at the same time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to plain Bible 
readers.” — The Church Standard. 

“A commentary with a very distinct character and purpose of its own, 
which brings to students and ministers an aid which they cannot obtain else- 
where. ... There is probably no other commentary in which criticism has 
been employed so successfully and impartially to bring out the author’s 
thought.” — WV, VY. Independent. 

“We have nothing but heartiest praise for the weightier matters of the 
commentary. It is not only critical, but exegetical, expository, doctrinal, 
practical, and eminently spiritual. The positive conclusions of the books are 
very numerous and are stoutly, gloriously evangelical. ... The commentary 
does not fail to speak with the utmost reverence of the whole word of Gad.” 
The Congregationalsst peryeitie 


the Iuteruational Oritical Gommentary, 





“This admirable series." —THE LONDON ACADEMY. 


EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 


By the Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., D. Litt. 


Formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity College, 
Dublin. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 


¢ The latest volume of this admirable series is informed with the very 
best spirit in which such work can be carried out—a spirit of absolute 
fidelity to the demonstrable truths of critical science. . . . This summary 
of the results of modern criticism applied to these two Pauline letters is, 
for the use of scholarly students, not likely to be superseded.” —7Ze Lon- 
don Academy. 


‘« An able and independent piece of exegesis, and one that none of us can 
afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has made himself mas- 
ter of his theme. His linguistic ability is manifest. His style is usually 
clear. His exegetical perceptions are keen, and we are especially grateful 
for his strong defence of the integrity and apostolicity of these two great 
monuments of Pauline teaching.” —The Expos‘tor. 


«St displays every mark of conscientious judgment, wide reading, and 
grammatical insight.” — Literature. 


‘«In discrimination, learning, and candor, it is the peer of the other vol. 
umes of the series. The elaborate introductions are of special value.”— 
Professor GEORGE B. SYEVENS, of Yale University. 


“Tt is rich in philological material, clearly arranged, and judiciously 
handled. The studies of words are uncommonly good. . . . Inthe 
balancing of opinions, in the distinguishing between fine shades of mean- 
ing, it is both acute and sound.” —7Zhe Church. 


‘©The exegesis based so solidly on the rock foundation of philology is 
argumentatively and convincingly strong. A spiritual and evangelical tenor 
pervades the interpretation from first to last. . . . These elements, to- 
gether with the author’s full-orbed vision of the truth, with his discrimina- 
tive judgment and his felicity of expression, make this the peer of any com- 
mentary on these important letters.” — Zhe Standard. 


“« An exceedingly careful and painstaking piece of work. The introduc: 
tory discussions of questions bearing on the authenticity and integrity (of 
the epistles) are clear and candid, and the exposition of the text displays a 
fine scholarship and insight.” —orthwestern Christian Advocate. 


‘«The book is from first to last exegetical and critical. Every phrase in 
the two Epistles is searched as with lighted candles. The authorities for 
variant readings are canvassed but weighed, rather than counted. The mul- 
tiform ancient and modern interpretations are investigated with the ex- 
haustiveness of a German lecture-room, and the judicial spirit of an English 
court-rcom. Special discussions are numerous and thorough.”—TZke Con: 
gregationalist, 


The International Critica’ Commentary. 





“J have already expressed my conviction that the Inter. 
swational Critical Commentary ts the best critical commentary, 
on the whole Bible, in existence.",-—Dr, LyMaN ABBOTT. 


Philippians and Philemon 


BY 


REV. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D. 
” Professor of Bictical Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York, 


Crown 8vo, Net $2.00. 





*¢Tt is, in short, in every way worthy of the series.”— The Scotsman, 

‘« Professor Vincent’s Commentary on Philippians and Philemon appears 
to me not less admirable for its literary merit than for its scholarship and its 
clear and discriminating discussions of the contents of these Epistles.”—Dr. 
GrEorGE P. FISHER. 


“The book contains many examples of independent and judicial weigh- 
ing of evidence. We have been delighted with the portion devoted to Phile- 
mon. Unlike most commentaries, this may wisely be read as a whole.”— 
The Congregationalist 


‘‘Of the merits of the work it is enough to say that it ts worthy of its 
place in the noble undertaking to which it belongs. It is ful? of just such 
information as the Bible student, lay or clerical, needs; and while giving an 
abundance of the truths of erudition to aid the critical student of the text, it 
abounds also in that more popular information which enables the attentive 
reader almost to put himself in St. Paul’s place, to see with the eyes and feel 
with the heart of the Apostle to the Gentiles.” —oston Advertiser. 


‘Tf it is possible in these days to produce a commentary which will be 
free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias, the feat will be accomplished in 
the International Critical Commentary. . . . It is evident that the writer 
has given an immense amount of scholarly research and original thought to 
the subject. . . . The author’s introduction to the Epistle to Philemon 
is an admirable piece of literature, calculated to arouse in the student’s mind 
an intense interest in the circumstances which produced this short letter from 
the inspired Apostle.” —Commercial Advertiser. 


‘* His discussion of Philemon is marked by sympathy and appreciation, 
and his full discussion of the relations of Pauline Christianity to slavery are 
interesting, both historically and sociologically.” — The Dial. 


‘« Throughout the work scholarly research is evident. It commends itself 
by its clear elucidation, its keen exegesis which marks the word study on 
every page, its compactness of statement and its simplicity of arrangement.” 
—Lutheran World. 


‘The scholarshiv ci the author seems to be fully equal to hist ‘dertaking, 
and he has given to us a fine piece of work. One cannot but se that if the 
entire series shall be executed upon a par with this portion, thet ‘an be lit- 
tle left co be desired.” —Philadelphia Presbyterian Journal, ‘ 


The Internationa’ Critical Commentary. 





“ The best commentary and the one most useful to the Bible 
student ts The International Critical.” 
—THE REFORMED CHURCH REVIEW. 


ST. PETER AND ST. JUDE 


By the Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D. 
Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 


“‘ His commentary is very satisfactory indeed. His notes are particularly 
valuable. We know of no work on these Epistles which is so full and satis- 
factory.”.— Zhe Living Church, 

‘Tt shows an immense amount of research and acquaintanceship with the 
views of the critical school.” —erald and Presbyter. 

‘*This volume well sustains the reputation achieved by its predecessors. 
The notes to the text, as well as the introductions, are marked by erudition 
at once affluent and discriminating.” — Zhe Outlook. 

“Canon Bigg’s work is pre-eminently characterized by judicial open- 
mindedness and sympathetic insight into historical conditions. His realistic 
interpretation of the relations of the apostles and the circumstances of the 
early church renders the volume invaluable to students of these themes, 
The exegetical work in the volume rests on the broad basis of careful lin- 
guistic study, acquaintance with apocalyptic literature and the writings of 
the Fathers, a sane judgment, and good sense.”—American Journal of 


Theology. 


NUMBERS 


By the Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D. 
Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


‘*Most Bible readers have the impression that ‘Numbers’ is a dull 
book only relieved by the brilliancy of the Balaam chapters and some 
snatches of old Hebrew songs, but, as Prof. Gray shows with admi- 
rable skill and insight, its historical and religious value is not that 
which lies on the surface, Prof. Gray’s Commentary is distinguished 
by fine scholarship and sanity of judgment; it is impossible to 
commend it too warmly.”—Saturday Review (London), 


The Mnternational 
Theological Library. 





EDITORS’ PREFACE. 


THEOLOGY has made great and rapid advances in recent 
years. New lines of investigation have been opened up, 
fresh light has been cast upon many subjects of the deepest 
interest, and the historical method has been applied with 
important results. This has prepared the way for a Library 
of Theological Science, and has created the demand for it. 
It has also made it at once opportune and practicable now 
to secure the services of specialists in the different depart- 
ments of Theology, and to associate them in an enterprise 
which will furnish a record of Theological inquiry up to 
date. 


This Library is designed to cover the whole field of Chris- 
tian Theology. Each volume is to be complete in itself, 
while, at the same time, it will form part of a carefully 
planned whole. One of the Editors is to prepare a volume 
of Theological Encyclopzedia which will give the history 
and literature of each department, as well as of Theology 
as a whole. 


The Library is intended to form a series of Text-Books 
for Students of Theology. 


The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and compacts 
ness of statement. At the same time, they have in view 


EDITORS’ PREFACE. 


that iarge and increasing class of students, in other depart- 
ments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic and thor- 
ough exposition of Theological Science. Technical matters 
will therefore be thrown into the form of notes, and the 
text will be made as readable and attractive as possible. 


The Library is international and interconfessional. It 
will be conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the interests 
of Theology as a science. 


Its aim will be to give full and impartial statements both 
of the results of Theological Science and of the questions 
which are still at issue in the different departments. 


The Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation in 
the several branches of study assigned to them. They will 
be associated with each other and with the Editors in the 
effort to provide a series of volumes which may adequately 
represent the present condition of investigation, and indi- 
cate the way for further progress. 


CHARLES A. BRIGGS. 
STEWART D. F. SALMOND. 





Theological Encyclopedia. By CHarves A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., 
Prof. of Theological Encyclopedia and 
Symbolics, Union Theol. Seminary, N.Y. 


An Introduction to the Literature of By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
the Old Testament. Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of 
Christ Church, Oxford. (Revised and 

enlarged edition). 


Canon and Text of the Old Testa- By Francis Crawford Burkitt, M.A., Lec- 
ment. turer in Cambridge University. 


Old Testament History. By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., 
. Professor of Biblical History, Amherst 
College, Mass. (Vow ready.) 


Contemporary History of the Old By FRAncis Brown, DD? 2D D Titts 
Testament. Professor of Hebrew, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 


Theology cf the Old Testament, By the late A. B. Davipson, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew, New College, 
Edinburgh. (Wow ready.) 


The Jnternationaf Cheofogicaf LiGrary. 





An Introduction to the Literature 
of the New Testament. 


Canon and Text of the New Testa- 
ment. 


The Life of Christ. 


A History of Christianity in the 
Apostolic Age. 


Contemporary History of the New 
Testament. 


Theology of the New Testament. 


Biblical Archzology. 


The Ancient Catholic Church. 


The Later Catholic Church. 


The Greek and Oriental Churches. 


The Reformation. 


Symbolics. 


History of Christian Doctrine. 


Christian Institutions. 


Philosophy of Religion. 


The History of Religions. 


Apologetics. 


The Doctrine of God. 


The Doctrine of Man. 


The Doctrine of Christ. 
The Christian Doctrine of Salvation. 


The Doctrine of the Future Life. 
Christian Ethics. 


The Christian Pastor and the Work- 
ing Church. 


The Christian Preacher, 
Rabbinical Literature. 


By Rev. James Moffatt, B.D. 


By CASPAR RENE Grecory, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in 
the University of Leipzig. 

By WILLIAM SanpbAy, D.D., LL.D., Lad: 
Margaret Professor of Divinity, an 
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 


By ARTHUR C. McGIFFERT, D.D., Professor 
of Church History, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. (Mow ready.) 


By FRANK C. PorTER, D.D., Professor of 
Biblical Theology, Yale University, New 
Haven, Conn. 


By GEorGE B. STEVENS, D.D., Professor 
of Systematic Theology, Yale University, 
New Haven, Conn. (Vow ready.) 


By G. BucHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. 


By Rosert Rarny, D.D., LL.D., Principal 
of the New College, Edinburgh. (/Vow 
ready.) 

By E. W. Watson, LL.D., Professor of 
Church History, Kings College, London. 


By W. F. ApENeEy, D.D., Professor of 
Church History, New College, London. 


By T. M. Linpsay, D.D., Principal of the 
United Free College, Glasgow. 


By CHarvses A. BriccGs, D.D., D.Litt., 
Prof. of Theological Encyclopedia and 
Symbolics, Union Theol. Seminary, N. Y. 

By G. P. FisHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor 
of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, 
New Haven, Conn. (Revised and en- 
farzed edition.) 

By A. V. G. ALLEN, D.D., Professor of 
Ecclesiastical History, P. E. Divinity 
School, Cambridge, Mass. (Vow ready.) 

By RoBERT FLINT, D.D., LL.D., sometime 
Professor of Divinity in the University of 
Edinburgh. 


By GgorGE F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor in Harvard University. 

By the late A. B. Bruck, D.D., sometime 
Professor of New Testament Exegesis, 
Free Church College, Glasgow. (Revised 
and enlarged edttton.) 

By WiLt1AM N. Crarkg, D.D., Professor 
of Systematic Theology, Hamilton The- 
ological Seminary. 

By WILL1AM P. PATERSON, D.D., Professor 
of Divinity, University of Edinburg. 


(Author will be announced later.) 


By GrorGE B. STEVENS, D.D., Professor of 
Systematic Theology, Yale University. 
(Now ready.) 


(Author will be announced later.) 


By NEwMAN SmytH, D.D., Pastor of Con- 
gregational Church, New Haven. (fe- 
vised and enlarged edition.) 


By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., Pastor 
of Congregational Church, Columbus, 
Ohio. (Now ready.) 

(Author will be announced later.) 


By S. SCHECHTER, M.A., President of the 
qoene Theological Seminary, New York 
IYs 





The International Theofogicaf Livrarp. 


AN INTRODUCTION TO 


The Literature of the Old Testament 


By Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt 


Canon of Christ Church, Oxford 
New Edition Revised 





Crown 8vo, 558 pages, $2.50 net 


-{t is the most scholarly and critical work in the English lan- 
guage on the literature of the Old Testament, and fully up to the 
present state of research in Ge nany.”—Prof. Puitip Scuarr, D.D. 


“Canon Driver has arrang | his material excellently, is succinct 
without being hurried or unclea., and treats the various critical prob- 
lems involved with admirable fairness and good judgment.” 

—Prof. C. H. Toy. 


‘“‘His judgment is singularly fair, calm, unbiassed, and inde- 


pendent. It is also thoroughly reverential. . . . The service, 
which his book will render in the present confusion of mind on this 
great subject, can scarcely be overestimated.” — 7ke London Times. 


‘« As a whole, there is probably no book in the English language 
equal to this ‘Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament’ 
for the student who desires to understand what the modern criticism 
thinks about the Bible.’”—Dr. Lyman Apgortt, zz the Outlook. 


‘<The book is one worthy of its subject, thorough in its treat- 
ment, reverent in its tone, sympathetic in its estimate, frank in its 
recognition of difficulties, conservative (in the best sense of the 
word) in its statement of results.” 

—Prof. Henry P. Smiru, zz the Magazine of Christian Literature. 


‘Tn working out his method our author takes up each book in 
order and goes through it with marvelous and microscopic care, 
Every verse, every clause, word by word, is sifted and weighed, and . 
its place in the literary organism decided upon.” 

— The Presbyterian Quarterly. 


“It contains just that presentation of the results of Old Testa- 
ment criticism for which English readers in this department have 
been waiting. . . . The whole book is excellent; it will be found 
helpful, characterized as it is all through by that scholarly poise of 
mind, which, when it does not know, is not ashamed to present de- 
grees of probability.”.—NMew World. 


i -__-, Canon Driver’s book is characterized throughout by 


thorough Christian scholarship, faithful research, caution in the 
expression of mere opinions, candor in the statement of facts and of 
the necessary inferences from them, and the devout recognition cf 
the divine inworking in the religious life of the Hebrews, and of the 
tokens of divine inspiration in the literature which records and eme 
bodies it.”—Dr. A. P. PEABODY, 7 the Cambridge Tribune. 


The International Theologica? Livrarp 
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 


By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D. 
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION, AMHERST COLLEGE 


Crown 8vo, 538 pages, $2.50 net 


This book gives a history of Old Testament times. 
This it does by a narrative based upon those Bibli- 
cal books which are historical inform. The nature 
of these books is carefully considered, their data are 
used according to historical methods, and the con- 
clusions of recent criticism are set forth. The other 
books of the Old Testament with the more impor- 
tant of the Apocrypha are given their proper place 
so far as they throw light on the development of 
the Old Testament people. 


“‘ Professor Smith has, by his comprehensive and vitalized history, 
laid all who care for the Old Testament under great obligations.” 
— The Independent. 


‘“* The volume is characterized by extraordinary clearness of cone 
ception and representation, thorough scholarly ability, and charm 
of style.”— The Interior. 


“Dr. Smith’s volume is critical without being polemical, inter- 
esting though not imaginative, scholarly without pedantry, and radi- 
cal but not destructive. The author is himself an authority, and his 
volume is the best single presentation with which we are familiar of 
the modern view of Old Testament history.” —7he Outlook. 


“This volume is the result of thorough study, is free from the 
controversial spirit and from any evidence of desire to challenge older 
theories of the Bible, is written in straightforward, clear style, does 
not linger unduly in discussion of doubtful matters, is reverent and at 
the same time fearless. If one has accepted the main positions of the 
Higher Criticism, while he may still differ with Professor Smith's 
conclusions here and there, he will find himself in accord with the 
spirit of the author, whose scholarship and achievement he will 
gladly honor.”— The Congregationalist. 


‘‘We have a clear, interesting, instructive account of the growth 
of Israel, embodying a series of careful judgments on the countless 
problems that face the man who tries to understand the life of that 
remarkable people. The ‘History’ takes its place worthily by the side 
of Driver’s Introduction. The student of to-day is to be congratulated 
on having so valuable an addition made to his stock of tools.” 

—The Expository Times. 


The International Theofoaica’ Library. 
The Theology of the Old Testament. 


BY THE LATE 


A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Litt.D. 
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, New College, Edinburgh. 





EDITED FROM THE AUTHOR’S MANUSCRIPTS 
BY 


S. D. F. SALMOND, D.D., F.E.I.S. 
Principal of the United Free Church College, Aberdeen. 


Crown 8vo. 568 pages. $2.50 net. 


“Tt is one of those monumental works whose publication the scholar hails 
with gratitude. Principal Salmond has edited Professor Davidson’s manu- 
scripts with care and fidelity. It would require much more space than we 
can give this volume in our crowded columns even to indicate the many points 
in which this, one of the greatest of Hebrew scholars, shows himself a lineal 
descendant and successor of the ancient prophets whom he loved so well; but 
it is enough to say that the work is fitted by its scholarship and its tone to 
become a standard in every theological seminary. Great pains have been 
taken with the Hebrew text, so frequently quoted, and its use is distinctly 
illuminative. His learning is never introduced to dazzle, but always to en- 
lighten the reader.” — Zhe Jnterior. 


“ We hope every clergyman will not rest content till he has procured and 
studied this most admirable and useful book. Every really useful question 
relating to man —his nature, his fall, and his redemption, his present life of 
grace, his life after death, his future life — is treated of. We may add that the 
most conservatively inclined believer in the Old Testament will find nothing 
in this book to startle him, while, at the same time, the book is fully cogni- 
zant of the altered views regarding the ancient Scriptures. The tone is rever- 
ent throughout, and no one who reads attentively can fail to derive fresh light 
and benefit from the exposition here given.” — 7he Canadian Churchman. 


“Dr. Davidson was so keen a student, and yet so reverent as to his Bible, 
that anything from his pen must be of profit. The book gives evidence that 
his eyes were wide open to all modern research, but yet he was not led astray 
by any of the vagaries of the schools. Through all the treatment of the 
theme he remains conservative, while seeking to know the truth.” — Zxaminer. 


“No one can fail to gain immense profit from its careful study. We rejoice 
that such a work is added to the store of helpful literature on the Old Testa- 
ment, and we express the hope that it may find wide reading among ministers 
and teachers of the Bible.” — 7%e Standard. 


“Tn its treatment of Old Testament theology, there is nothing to equal it 
in the English language, and nothing to surpass it in any language. While it 
is prepared for scholars it will prove an education in the Old Testament to the 
intelligent laymen or Sunday-school teachers who will give it a faithful read- 
ing. The style is so clear that it cannot help but prove interesting. We com- 
mend this book with a special prayer, believing that it will make the Old 
Testament a richer book; and make the foundation upon which the teachings 
of the New Testament stand more secure to every one who reads it.” 

— The Heidelberg Teacher. 


She Internationa? Theofogica BiGrarp. 





A HISTORY OF 


. CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 


BY 
ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT, Ph.D., D.D: 
Washburn Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New Yorks 


Crown 8vo, 681 Pages, $2.50 Net. 


‘The author’s work is ably done. . . . This volume is worthy of 
its place in the series.” — The Congregationalist. 


‘« Invaluable as a résumé of the latest critical work upon the great forma- 
tive period of the Christian Church.” — Ze Christian World (London). 


‘«There can be no doubt that this is a remarkable work, both on account 
of the thoroughness of its cci“*cism and the boldness of its views.” 
—The Scotsman. 


‘*The ability and learning of Professor McGiffert’s work on the Apos- 
tolic Age, and, whatever dissent there may be from its critical opinion, its 
manifest sincerity, candid scholars will not fail to appreciate.” 

—Dr. GEorGE P. FISHER, of Yale University. 


“‘ Pre-eminently a clergyman’s book; but there are many reasons why it 
should be in the library of every thoughtful Christian person. The style 
is vivid and at times picturesque. The results rather than the processes of 
learning are exhibited. It is full of local color, of striking narrative, and of 
keen, often brilliant, character analysis. It is an admirable book for the 
Sunday-school teacher.” — Boston Advertiser. 


‘For a work of such wide learning and critical accuracy, and which deals 
with so many difficult and abstruse problems of Christian history, this is re- 
markably readable.” — The Independent. 


“‘Tt is certain that Professor McGiffert’s work has set the mark for 
future effort in the obscure fields of research into Christian origin.” 
—New York Tribune. 


““Dr. McGiffert has produced an able, scholarly, suggestive, and con- 
structive work. He is in thorough and easy possession of his sources and 
materials, so that his positive construction is seldom interrupted by citations, 
tne demolition of opposing views, or the irrelevant discussion of szbordinate 
questions.” — The Methodist Review. 


‘“‘The clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole impressica of 
Apostolic Christianity with which we leave this book, goes far to guarantes 
its permanent value and success.”— The Expositar. 


che Internationa? Tbeofogicaf Library. 
Christian Ethics, 





By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D., New Haven. 
Crown 8vo, 508 pages, $2.50 net. 


«« As this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most attractive 
treatment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and ex- 
haustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in 
the topic it handles, we are confident that it will be a help to the 
task of the moral understanding and interpretation of human life.” 

— The Living Church. 


“This book of Dr. Newman Smyth is of extraordinary interest and 
value. It is an honor to American scholarship and American Chris- 
tian thinking. It is a work which has been wrought out with re- 
markable grasp of conception, and power of just analysis, fullness otf 
information, richness of thought, and affluence of apt and luminous 
illustration. Its style is singularly clear, simple, facile, and strong. 
Too much gratification can hardly be expressed at the way the author 
lifts the whole subject of ethics up out of the slough of mere natural- 
ism into its own place, where it is seen to be illumined by the Chris- 
tian revelation and vision.” — The Advance. 


““The subjects treated cover the whole field of moral and spiritual re- 
lations, theoretical and practical, natural and revealed, individual and social, 
civil and ecclesiastical. To enthrone the personal Christ as the true content 
of the ethical ideal, to show how this ideal is realized in Christian conscious: 
ness and how applied in the varied departments of practical life—these are 
the main objects of the book and no objects could be loftier.”’ 

— The Congregationalist. 


‘« The author has written with competent knowledge, with great spiritual 
insight, and in a tone of devoutness and reverence worthy of his theme.” 
—The London Independent. 


“Tt is methodical, comprehensive, and readable; few subdivisions, 
direct or indirect, are omitted in the treatment of the broad theme, and 
though it aims to be an exhaustive treatise, and not a popular haidbook, it 
may be perused at random with a good deal of suggestiveness and profit.” 

—The Sunday School Times. 


«Tt reflects great credit on the author, presenting an exemplsry temper 
and manner throughout, being a model of clearness in thought and term, 
and containing passages of exquisite finish.” —Hartford Seminary Recor. 


“‘ We commend this book to all reading, intelligent men, an especi Uv 
to ministers, who will find in it many fresh suggestions.” 
—PRoFEssorR A. H Barucp- 


The International Theologica Library, 








THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE 
WORKING CHURCH 


By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., LL.D. 


Author of ‘‘ Applied Christianity,” ‘‘ Who Wrote the Bible?” “ Ruling 
; Ideas of the Presen. Age,” etc. 


Crown 8vo, 485 pages, $2.50 net. 


*¢«Dr, Gladden may be regarded as an expert and an authority on practi- 
al theology. . . . Upon the whole we judge that it will be of great 
service to the ministry of all the Protestant churches.” — The Jnterior. 


“‘Packed with wisdom and instruction and a profound piety. . . . 
It is pithy, pertinent, and judicious from cover to cover. . . . An ex- 
ceedingly comprehensive, sagacious, and suggestive study and application 
of its theme.” — 7he Congregationalist, 


‘«We have here, for the pastor, the most modern practical treatise yet 
published—sagacious, balanced, devout, inspiring.” —7he Dial. 


‘« His long experience, his eminent success, his rare literary ability, and 
his diligence as a student combine to make of this a model book for its pur- 
pose. . . . Weknow not where the subjects are more wisely discussed 
than here.” —TZhe Bibliotheca Sacra. 


‘‘This book should be the vade mecum of every working pastor. It 
abounds in wise counsels and suggestions, the result of large experience 
and observation. No sphere of church life or church work is left untreated.” 
—The (Canadian) Methodist Magazine and Review. 


‘« A happier combination of author and subject, it will be acknowledged, 
can hardly be found. . . . It is comprehensive, practical, deeply 
spiritual, and fertile in wise and suggestive thought upon ways and means 
of bringing the Gospel to bear on the lives of men.”—TZe Christian Ad- 
vocate. 


‘Dr. Gladden writes with pith and point, but with wise moderation, a 
genial tone and great good sense. . . . The book is written in an excel- 
lent, business-like and vital English style, which carries the author’s point 
and purpose and has an attractive vitality of its own.” —7xe Independent. 


“« A comprehensive, inspiring, and helpful guide to a busy pastor. Ons 
&nds in-it a multitude of practical suggestions for the development of the 
Spiritual and working life of the Church, and the answer to many problems 
that are a constant perplexity to the faithful minister.” 

The Christian Intelligencer 


The Internationa Thectogicaf Library. 





CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. 


By ALEXANDER V. G. ALLEN, D.D. 


Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Episcopal Theological Scheel 
in Cambridge. 


Crown 8vo, 577 pages, $2.50 net. 





«* Professor Allen’s Christian Institutions may be regarded as tht mos: 
important permanent contribution which the Protestant Episcopal Church 
‘of the United States has yet made to general theological thought. In a few 
particulars it will not command the universal, or even the genera! assent of 
discriminating readers ; but it will receive, as it deserves, the respect and 
appreciation of those who rightly estimate the varied, learned, and independ- 
ent spirit of the author.”—7he American Journal of Theology. 


‘“*Asto his method there can be no two opinions, nor as to the broad, 
critical, and appreciative character of his study. It is an immensely sug- 
gestive, stimulating, and encouraging piece of work. It shows that modern 
scholarship is not all at sea as to results, and it presents a worthy view of a 
great and noble subject, the greatest and noblest of all subjects.” —7he Jn- 
dependent. 


“This will at once take its place among the most valuable volumes in the 
‘Tnternational Theological Library,’ constituting in itself a very complete 
epitome both of general church history and of the history of doctrines. 
. . . A single quotation well illustrates the brilliant style and the pro- 
found thought of the book.” —TZke Bibliotheca Sacra. 


‘« The wealth of learning, the historical spirit, the philosophic grasp, the 
loyalty to the continuity of life, which everywhere characterize this thorough 
study of the organization, creeds, and cultus constituting Christian Institu- 
tion. . . . However the reader may differ with the conclusions of the 
author, few will question his painstaking scholarship, judicial temperament, 
and catholicity of Christian spirit.” —7he Advance. 


“Tt is an honor to American scholarship, and will be read by all who 
wish to be abreast of the age.” —TZhe Lutheran Church Review, 


“« With all its defects and limitations, this is a most illuminating and sug: 
gestive book on a subject of abiding interest.”—Zhe Christian Intelli- 
gencer.” 


“Tt is a treasury of expert knowledge, arranged in an orderly and lucid 
manner, and more than ordinarily readable. . -. . It is controlled by the 
candid and critical spirit of the careful historian who, of course, has his 
convictions and preferences, but who makes no claims in their behalf which 
the facts do not seem to warrant.” — Zhe Congregationalist, 


‘« He writes in a charming style, and has collected a vast amount of im- 
portant material pertaining to his subject which can be found in no other 
work in so compact a form.” =e dVew York Observer 


The Internationa’ Theofogicaf Library. 








Apologetics; 
Or, Christianity Defensively Stated. 


By the late ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D., 


Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, 
Glasgow ; Author of ‘‘ The Training of the Twelve,’’ ‘‘ The Humilia- 
tion of Christ,’’ ‘‘ The Kingdom of God,”’ etc. 





Crown 8vo, 528 pages, $2.50 net. 





Professor Bruce’s work is not an abstract treatise on apologetics, 
but an apologetic presentation of the Christian faith, with reference 
to whatever in our intellectual environment makes faith difficult at 
the present time. 

It addresses itself to men whose sympathies are with Christianity, 
and discusses the topics of pressing concern—the burning questions 
of the hour. It is offered as an aid to faith rather than a buttress of 
received belief and an armory of weapons for the orthodox believer, 


«‘The book throughout exhibits the methods and the results of 
conscientious, independent, expert and devout Biblical scholarship, 
and it is of permanent value.” — 7he Congregationalist. 


‘““The practical value of this book entitles it toa place in the 
first rank.” — The Independent. 


“A patient and scholarly presentation of Christianity under 
aspects best fitted to commend it to ‘ingenuous and truth-loving 
minds.’ ”— 7he Nation. 


“The book is well-nigh indispensable to those who propose to 
keep abreast of the times.” — Western Christian Advocate. 


‘“*Professor Bruce does not consciously evade any difficulty, 
and he constantly aims to be completely fair-minded. For this 
reason he wins from the start the strong confidence of the reader.” — 
Advance. 


“Its admirable spirit, no less than the strength of its arguments, 
will goiar to remove many of the prejudices or doubts of those who 
are outsia» of Christianity, but who are, nevertheless, not infidels.”— 
New York Tribune. ; 


“In a word, he tells precisely what all intelligent persons wish to 
know, and tells it in aclear, fresh and convincing manner. Scarcely 
anyone has so successfully rendered the service of showing what 
the result of the higher criticism is for the proper understanding of 
the history and religion of Israel.” — Andover Review. 


‘‘We have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is more 
stimulating to faith. . . . Without comimenting further, we repeat 
that this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, and 
sharpest defence of Christianity that has ever been written. Nec 
theological library should he without it.” —7%on’s Herald. 














lAY 0 6 198 


Demco 293-5 


» 


Wii 
D00669971 








